9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeds to be adhered to and not the quantity restrictions. Thereafter, it appears that the customs had made reference to the licensing authorities who advised that both the quantity as well as the value limits specified in the advance licence should be complied with and accordingly, show-cause notices were issued alleging suppression. At the time of clearance of the goods both the appellant and the department entertained the belief that if the value restrictions are complied with, the same would suffice and accordingly, the benefit of notification No. 79/95-Cus was extended and the assessment finalized accordingly. Therefore, the show-cause notice and the consequential demands are clearly time barred and therefore, the demand of differenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance licence from the market on payment of consideration, after fulfilling of export obligation by the original licence holder. In terms of the licence, the appellant was entitled to import kraft paper. The licence prescribed two restrictions. One is in terms of quantity and another in terms of value. As per the column No. 6 of the licence, the restriction was only in terms of value. Accordingly, the appellant imported kraft paper vide Bill of Entry dated 10/08/1999, while the value of imports was within the limit prescribed under the advance licence, the quantity was in excess of that stipulated. The goods imported were allowed to be cleared by availing notification No. 79/95-Cus dated 31/03/95 and the duty was assessed finally. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty is clearly unsustainable in law. 3. As regards the other appellants, CEL Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and its Executive director Shri Rajiv S Mehta and the Broker M/s. Rajesh Enterprises none represented them. However, all the demands and penalties arise from the same order and the facts are also identical in respect of the imports made by CEL Packaging Pvt. Ltd. The imports were undertaken during August/September 1999 under two bills of entry dated 17/08/1999 and another 08/09/1999. The rest of the charges remains the same, that is, exceeding the quantity of the imports prescribed in the licence though the value is within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, the demands have been confirmed and penalties imposed. 3.1 As regards M/s. Rajes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
