9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed the benefit of exemption Notification No.34/1997, dt.07.04.1997. These Bills of Entry were filed along with several DEPB licences including Licence No.0310183723/2/6/00 dt.13.02.2003 registered as Maliwada CFS, Aurangabad which was supported by a Release Advice (RA) No.DEPB/196/03-04, dt.22.01.2004. The appellant had purchased the said DEPB License, which was in the name of M/s Balkrishna Industries, from a broker M/s Gopal Overseas. On verification, the Department found that the said Release Advice was forged. Therefore, investigations were carried out and statements of various peoples were recorded which revealed that the said DEPB licence was lost and a police complaint regarding the loss was also lodged by M/s Balkrishna Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be extended to the appellant. He further observed that since the appellant had used the forged RA to clear the goods under exemption, the onus was on them to discharge the duty liability along with interest. He also observed that the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. He further observed that since the conditions of the exemption notification were not satisfied, the seized goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. He refrained from imposing penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant since the penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was already imposed. 5. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellant preferred an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice and records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the utilization of licence/release advice and DEPB for clearance of goods for home consumption. The goods sought to be cleared are various imported oils. We also find that after investigation, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,41,435/- under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and also for confiscation of the goods under the provisions of Section 111(oo) of Customs Act, 1962. 10. On perusal of the records, we find that instead of referring the order on the merits of the case, the issue can be remanded back to the adjudicating authority only on the ground of non-finalisation of said Bills of Entry. It is undisputed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment is made under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on any of the permissible grounds allowed thereunder, is it lawful to hold that the assessment as a whole is provisional so as to save a claim for refund on a different ground from the operation of time bar, or whether the provisionality is restricted to the only grounds on the basis of which provisional assessment was initially referred to. The Division Bench in that case held that the provisional assessment made is provisional for all purposes, and is not to be treated as provisional only in respect of a particular ground considered. We are in agreement with that view. 3. The assessment is either provisional or final, and if it is provisional, it retains that character of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
