9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to the Development Commissioner, nor did they submit the relevant documents to him under the Exim Policy provisions - It was by way of enforcement of this bond that the show-cause notice was issued for recovery of duty on the offending raw material. Prima facie, the Revenue can raise such demand of duty without invoking Sec. 28 of the Customs Act and, for that matter, without the bar of limitation - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to deposit 50% of the duty demanded - C/1005-1006/2009-Mum - S/116-117/2011-WZB/C-I/CSTB - Dated:- 14-3-2011 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Sahab Singh, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside by this Tribunal on the ground of denial of natural justice and the case was remanded for de novo adjudication vide Order No. A/433-434/08 dated 29-7-08 in Appeal Nos. C/378 C/379/08 [2009 (236) E.L.T. 339 (Tribunal)]. The learned Commissioner, accordingly, undertook de novo adjudication of the show-cause notice and passed the impugned order after considering the party s submissions. 3. The first appellant, M/s. Galaxy Garments, was an 100% EOU during the material period. The second appellant is its Proprietor. In de novo adjudication of the show-cause notice (which was issued on 29-12-06 for recovery of customs duty on imported raw materials for the period November, 2001 to March, 2003 by invoking the relevant conditions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit. 5. The ld. JCDR further submits that the Order-in-Original passed by the Development Commissioner was not appealed against, which fact is noted by a letter dated 20-11-06 of the Development Commissioner to the department. 6. On going through the records of this case, we find that the appellants imported goods worth Rs. 18,84,92,401 without payment of duty by claiming benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus, but exported goods worth Rs. 75,95,000/- only. A positive NFEP could not be achieved by them. They did not even intimate the date of commencement of production of export goods to the Development Commissioner, nor did they submit the relevant documents to him under the Exim Policy provisions. Investigations conducted by the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shown to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner to have been used in the manufacture of finished goods for export. It was by way of enforcement of this bond that the show-cause notice was issued for recovery of duty on the offending raw material. Prima facie, the Revenue can raise such demand of duty without invoking Sec. 28 of the Customs Act and, for that matter, without the bar of limitation. The Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) ] cited by the JCDR appears to support this legal preposition. Hence, prima facie, there is no merit in the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellants, according to whom the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
