9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 53/97 and thereafter subsequently diverted it to local market without payment of duty and without obtaining permission of the Customs officer. One truck loaded with such fabrics was intercepted by the Customs officer and the driver could not produce any documents like invoice, challan, bill of entry, etc. and stated that the goods were loaded from the premises of M/s. Sanjida Fabrics. The goods were accordingly seized and in follow up action taken, unit of M/s. Sanjida Fabrics was visited and shortages in the stock of imported fabrics was found. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the shortages so detected and proposing confiscation of the seized goods under Sections 111(j) and (o) of the Customs Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable. In support of their plea, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hissar Medical Diagnostic Hospitals Ltd v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 268 (T) = 2006 (76) RLT 675. 5. The learned DR submitted that the units falls under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad and since the demand has been issued for violation of post import conditions, the demand has been raised under Section 72 of the Act with Section 28 of the Customs Act and penalties have been imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) for which the Commissioner of Customs is competent authority. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pahwa Chemicals v. Commissioner reported in 2005 (181) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill of entry and it is the officer-in-charge of place where into bond bill of entry is to be filed who has the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. In the present case, demand has been issued by the officer under whose jurisdiction the 100% EOU falls and where only the exto-bond bill of entry could have been filed. Besides, the seized goods, have been recovered from the premises which fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. This has also been held by the Tribunal in the case of Engee Industries v. CC, Bombay reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal) that in case of clandestine removal goods, the cause of action continues from place of clandestine import to place of removal where transfer the seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
