9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Advance Licensing Scheme for import of Para Nitro Chloro Benzene (PNCB) and Acetic Anhydride. The first item is non-sensitive and the second item is sensitive. With respect to the sensitive item, the licence was issued with both quantity and value restricted with the condition that the individual CIF value of Acetic Anhydride shall not be utilised for import of the other permitted raw materials. In respect of each licence, there is an export obligation. The departmental officers, on investigation, found that the limits prescribed for individual CIF value in respect of imports under the Advance Licences had crossed. Moreover, the total imports also had crossed the revised CIF values due to amendments made after the imports were made. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating a case which was totally different from the case which was made out in the show cause notice. This decision having been taken behind the back of the appellants, as no such information was given to them at the time of show cause notice or the personal hearing as was contained in the said annexure of the order impugned, this tantamounted to denial of principles of natural justice. 3.In view of the remand, the original Adjudicating Authority heard the parties again and passed the impugned de novo order dated 12-7-2002. In the de novo order, the Commissioner has confirmed exactly the same amount as in the first order under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as well as the assessments made were audited by the Customs Authorities and verified by the department i.e. by the assessing authority as well as by the auditing authority. Only after the above process, the goods were cleared. Hence, there is no point in the allegation that the appellants have mis-stated or suppressed the facts. Once it is held that the PNCB import in excess is not permissible in terms of Notification 203/92, the same Notification cannot be invoked for recovering duty. Notification 203/92 as well as the bond executed may be invoked only in cases where the material allowed duty free was not used for the purpose for which it was allowed. That is not the case in the present proceeding. Hence, the adjudicating authority is wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
