9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany, the remaining appellants. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the demand of duty has been challenged mainly on the ground of limitation. Learned Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period February, 2001 to August, 2002 in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 7-12-2005. The case of the appellants is that, on a similar set of facts for a previous period, the department had issued show-cause notice dated 31-10-2002 and the same was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner in 2005 and against that order, an appeal filed by the company is pending before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the subject show-cause notice dated 7-12-2005 was issued on the basis of results of investigations which were started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Entry, however, learned Counsel submits that the appellants are awaiting end-use certificate from the Central Excise officer. On this and other grounds, learned Counsel prays for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty and penalty amounts. Learned SDR opposes this prayer on the strength of the findings recorded by the Commissioner. It is particularly pointed out that certain entries in transport documents covering the transportation of the imported scrap were manipulated by the importer so as to make it appear that the entire quantity of the goods was received in the factory within six months from the date of import. Learned SDR further submits that the ratio of the Apex Court s decision in Nizam Sugar Factory (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts relevant to the present demand were known to the department by reason of the fact that a similar case had been booked against the party in relation to earlier imports. The Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment, as rightly pointed out by learned SDR, does not appear to be applicable to the present case. In that case, the facts constituting relationship between the assessee and their buyer was found to have been in the knowledge of the department for a previous period covered by a previous show-cause notice. On that basis, their Lordships held, in respect of a subsequent period, that the show-cause notice alleging such relationship and demanding duty from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
