2011 (2) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the Assistant Commissioner and rewarehousing of certificates as required were produced and the only suppression is regarding the declaration that goods were found to be defective - find that even if the goods were not defective as claimed by the Revenue, extended time limit is not available since the officers of the Revenue were aware that goods had been sent back in terms of para 6.18 of ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue has contended that on scrutiny of the quality control report dated 28.8.2001, it was found that the goods conformed to their request specifications and therefore were not defective and hence there was a mis-declaration on the part of the appellants while sending back the goods on the ground that they were defective. Goods were returned on 30.4.2002 and show cause notice was issued on 16.2.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is applicable. 3. We find that admittedly the goods were sent after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner and rewarehousing of certificates as required were produced and the only suppression is regarding the declaration that goods were found to be defective. I find that even if the goods were not defective as claimed by the Revenue, extended time limit is not available since th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X