9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een taken into consideration, as per application filed by them, are as under :- (a) That the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla could adjudicate upon demand relating to customs duty only, prior to 11-5-2004, and not those relating to demand of Central Excise duty. In the present case, the opponent inspite of his being a Commissioner of Customs, has confirmed demands and imposed penalty under provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thereby such confirmation of demands and imposition of penalties being totally without jurisdiction could not have been confirmed/imposed. (b) The applicant had not filed any bills of entry as an importer nor had availed of benefit of exemption Notification No. 28/2001-C.E., dated 16-5-2001 and Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss-examination requested for by the applicant was not granted inspite of the request being made for limited number of persons genuinely required. (g) Apart from the aforesaid, it is submitted that the price of the goods sold to the buyers, as per the contracts entered into with them, was ex-Kandla Special Economic Zone. Thus, any liabilities arising subsequent thereto was not the burden of the applicant and therefore, no liability whatsoever could have been fastened on the applicant. (h) It is a well settled position that a sole proprietorship firm does not have its own existence and the firm exists through its proprietor. In fact, Shri Dinesh Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises appeared during the course of investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of the appellant and balance of convenience with regards pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act relevant to the person. 3. I is (sic) also necessary to consider the provisions of Section 35F before proceeding further :- SECTION 35F. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied. - Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied; Provided that there in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived substantial quantity of goods, stated that they had not received the same. Prima facie it was found that the appellant had made out no prima facie whatsoever. It has to be noted that the diversions have been supported by evidence. 6. However, one aspect which relates to jurisdiction is considered since it was omitted to be discussed. The appellants claim that prior to 11-5-2004, Commissioner of Customs, Kandla could not have adjudicated cases relating to demand of Central Excise duty. It is not known on what basis this claim has been made since no further details are forth coming. However, ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (N.T.) dated 7-3-2002 appoint the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
