9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In the impugned order, learned Commissioner has demanded differential duty of over Rs. 1.27 crores from the appellants in respect of Gas Turbine Generator (GTG, for short) which was originally imported under a project import scheme for the purpose of generation of electricity, subsequently exported to the supplier (in the US) for repairs and return, and re-import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the ambit of the above Notification and alternatively, the valuation should have been done in terms of Rule 8. They have numerous grounds against the above demand on merits. However, for the present purpose, their counsel has placed emphasis on limitation. 2. The above demand of duty on the goods re-imported in July, 2004 was raised in show-cause notice issued in October, 2005. The lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanying declaration and have found substance in this argument. The assessee through counsel has also raised the plea of bona fide belief against invocation of the extended period of limitation. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to Order-in-Original dated 17-4-2002 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) in the assessee's own case, wherein it was found inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by them after repairs abroad. Learned SDR has not contested the counsel's submission that the above finding of the Assistant Commissioner was not challenged by the Revenue. We think, for the present purpose, we have reason to take the prima facie view that the impugned demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as there is evidence, on record, of the assessee having not suppressed anything before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
