9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of investigation, the imported yarn received by them, was found to be diverted and partial recoveries were made from the premises of M/s. Lakhani Filaments and M/s. Chamunda Textiles. On visit to their unit, shortage in the yarn received by them was found and accordingly show cause notices were issued demanding duty on the shortages of yarn so found and proposing confiscation of yarn recovered from the premises of M/s. Lakhani Filaments and M/s. Chamunda Textiles and also proposed penalties on the 100% EOU M/s Micro Polyester and its Director Shri V.C. Singhal, the owner of the truck Shri Goswami in whose truck the seized goods were transported, Shri D.B. Patil, Manager of M/s. Lakhani Filaments and Shri R.B. Patel, Prop of M/s. Chamu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 114A is not justifiable. 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 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act and penalties have been imposed under Sections 112(b) and 114A 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filing into bond bill of entry and it is the officer in charge of the place where exto 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 ex-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. It has also been held by the Tribunal in the case of Engee Services Industries Pvt. Ltd. v CC, Bombay reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 152 held that in case of clandestine removal goods, the cause of action continues from place of clandestine import to place of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
