9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT", for the sake of brevity) in Appeal No. C/29/08-MUM. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee, i.e. the respondent herein on 13th July, 2005. The notice mentioned that the assessee had not maintained records in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3,92,878/- being the differential customs duty payable should not be recovered from it as in accordance with the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act read with Rule 7 of the Customs (Import at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996; (ii) interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act should not be recoverred and (iii) penalty under Section 114A of the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Department preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the order dated 15-10-2007, the appeal was dismissed. The appellate authority found that the issue arises because of certain contraventions in respect of import of goods and hence the appeal ought to have been filed under the provisions of the Customs Act. It was further held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee. The CESTAT found that even in the appeal before it the Department had not placed any evidence on record to indicate that there was any suppression on the part of the respondents. The CESTAT accepted the view of the lower authorities that the demand was made beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. 6. In our view, the appeal filed by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
