9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Shri Sansar Chand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants availed Credit of Rs. 2,81,619.00 vide Bill of Entry No. 232027 dated 30-9-2000. It has been noted in the backside of the Bill of Entry that "goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 232027 dated 30-9-2000 sold as such to M/s. Soorajmull Raijnath Industries Pvt. Ltd. vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. He submits that in the present case, the importer endorsed the Bill of Entry, after removal of the goods from port area and therefore, Board Circular is not applicable herein. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd.v. Union of India reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 82 (Bombay). He further submits that the demand of duty is barred by limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit case for invocation of extended period of limitation. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Appellant availed the credit on the basis of Bill of Entry, which was duly recorded in the RG-23 A Part-I & Part-II Register. It was endorsed in the backside of the Bill of Entry that inputs were imported by M/s. Intrade India, Delhi and supplied and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... msp;The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Zarda Udyog v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.) held that mere failure or negligence on part of manufacturer either not to take out licence or not to pay duty in cases where there is scope for doubt, does not attract extended period of limitation. In the case of T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, Madras reported in 2003 (152 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
