9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact is that any quantity of the imported raw material which was not actually contained in the export goods was not disclosed to the department. Prima facie, there is suppression - extended period rightly invoked. Appellant is directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty within a period of four weeks and report compliance on 11-9-2009 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/1256/2008 - Stay Order No. S/354/2009-WZB/C-II/(CSTB) - Dated:- 7-8-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko and A.K. Srivastava, JJ. Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER In this application, the appellant prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of Customs duty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, all these conditions were satisfied by them. However, the learned Commissioner found that their actual consumption of the imported raw material in the manufacture of the export product was to the extent of only 0.206 MTs of Aluminium ingots per MT of Aluminium chloride. It was also noticed that, as per SION norms, a quantity of 0.268 MTs of Aluminium ingots could be consumed in the manufacture of 1 MT of Aluminium Chloride. The Commissioner found that the assessee availed the exemption in respect of the entire quantity of Aluminium ingots imported by them. It was found that the difference between 0.206 MTs and 0.268 MTs of Aluminium ingots [per MT of Aluminium Chloride] had not actually been used in the manufacture of Aluminium Chlorid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in this argument. The policy, whereunder the Advance Licences in question were issued, clearly provides that such Advance Licences are issued for duty-free import of goods which are physically incorporated in the export product. The policy also lays down that duty-free import of inputs under such Advance Licence should be subject to actual user condition. In the instant case, the impugned demand of duty is on a quantity of Aluminium ingots imported by the assessee but not incorporated in the export product, or (in other words) not actually used in the manufacture of such product. In this background, it is difficult to say that the assessee is entitled to exemption from payment of duty on the said quantity of raw material. 4. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue therein is analogous to the one which we are considering at present. The case law cited by the learned Counsel does not appear to be of any aid to the appellant. 5. At this stage, the learned Counsel has pleaded limitation against the demand of duty. It is submitted that the demand is beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The learned DR has opposed this plea. We find that the extended period of limitation has been invoked on the ground that the crucial fact was suppressed by the assessee. The fact is that any quantity of the imported raw material which was not actually contained in the export goods was not disclosed to the department. Prima facie, there is suppression. 6. At this stage, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
