9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Raghu, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This is a Revenue Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 26/02, dated 18-2-2002. Both the authorities have contested the matter in assessee s favour. The Revenue is aggrieved with the Order-in-Original and had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) on detailed reasoning accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 70/81-Cus. but they had not claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. After a lapse of more than one year, the Department initiated proceedings against the assessee on the ground that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. and the same was not eligible. Both the authorities examined the issue in detail and concluded that the importer had not claimed the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts regarding importation or regarding the assessment of bill of entry dated 25-10-88 and at best it can be termed as technical in nature. It was also held that the goods had been cleared in accordance with Customs letter and there is no short levy or non-levy due to collusion or willful suppression of facts. Therefore, the imported items cannot be confiscated and no penal action can be initiated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had not prayed for the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. There was no mistake on the part of the assessing authority in granting the benefit of Notification No. 70/81-Cus., as there was no mis-declaration or suppression of facts. Larger period in the present case cannot be invoked. The show cause notice has been issued on 2-9-99 in respect of bill of entry assessed dated 25-10-88. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
