9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i V.P.C. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 135/2006(V)-II C.E., dated 18-9-2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants made DTA sales of tangs and scaifes under 22AR1As; Nos. 4-10, all dated 17-4-1998 and Nos. 11-24 all dated 25-5-2008 and No. 25 dated 1-6-1998 against advance DTA sale permissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of customs. Accordingly, a show cause notice, answerable to the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, VEPZ, Visakhapatnam, was issued to the appellants in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was therefore proposed in the show cause notice demand an amount of Rs. 4,12,480/- towards Central Excise duty which was allegedly short paid by them in respect of 22 consignments cleared under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. 5. Ld. SDR would reiterate the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the non-payment of 50% of the Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) of the 22 consignments cleared to DTA sale. The main contention of the appellant is that they are not aware of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-8-2006 and once they had knowledge about the Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 they ought to have discharged appropriate duty liability on the said DTA clearances. Further the appellants contentions that as the goods had already been cleared, the extra duty liability now fastened upon them cannot be recovered from their customers could not be accepted as it is the responsibility of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
