9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e material in the manufacture of finished goods to be exported to the extent stipulated. Later on, after investigations, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had reason to infer that the raw material imported by the respondents were sold/diverted/disposed of for purposes other than utilization in discharge of export obligation. On this basis, the DRI held that the respondents were not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 204/92 and had rendered themselves liable to penalty. The respondents paid an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs during the course of investigations. The Department issued a show-cause notice to them (a) to demand duty of Rs. 1,89,18,113/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act in respect of the goods import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total liability, is justifiable and hence admitted. The duty liability thus reduced further is Rs. 46,16,560/- (Rupees forty six lakhs sixteen thousand five hundred and sixty only) In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner dropped the proposal for levy of interest on duty under Section 28AB as also the proposal to impose penalty under Section 114A, both the provisions having come into force after the subject imports. The present appeal of the Department is directed against (a) dropping of demand of duty on the raw material imported by the respondents under Advance Licence No. 2026490 and (b) dropping of the demand of interest on duty under Section 28AB. According to the appellant, the importer did not produce any proof of fulf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove letter. Hence it is not open to the appellant today to say that export obligation was not discharged by the respondents. 2. Section 28AB of the Customs Act came into force on 28-9-96 only. All the imports in question were made prior to this date. According to the appellant, prospective operation of Section 28AB would mean that the provision is invocable for levy of interest on any amount of duty determined by an adjudicating authority after the said date. This argument, we find, is negatived by the very text of Section 28AB. Sub-section (2) as it stood on 28-9-96 reads thus:- For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where the duty became payable before the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
