9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri J.M. George, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. imported a consignment in December, 1994 of technical documents and catalogues. The department accepted the value declared of the consignment of DM. 5240/- and cleared the consignment. The company imported a second consignment of such material, and filed on 26- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand, ordered confiscation of the consignment pending clearance with an option to redeem it on payment of fine and also imposed penalty on the importer. Hence this appeal. 3. Among the contentions that the Counsel for the appellants advances is that the demand with regard to the first consignment is barred by limitation. The notice alleged that the importer suppressed the fact of technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Department therefore would not know from these documents that the import was made in pursuance of this agreement. It is only when the Department asked for the agreement that it was furnished. Therefore, the extended period would be available. 4. We are unable to accept this logic. A notice issued under Section 28 of the Act can only be issued for levy of duty short levied or not levied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second consignment is concerned it is the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the importer has not exercised the option given by the Commissioner to pay fine for its redemption, the question of payment of duty therefor does not arise. He says that the appellant will not clear these goods. No duty is payable on the second consignment. Hence, the confiscation of the goods under clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
