2010 (3) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 64/CUS/APPL/KNP/09, dated 25-3-2009 [2009 (247) E.L.T. 912 (Commr. Appl.)]. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents filed shipping bills for export of 100096.25 square feet declaring the same as finished leather from hides of buffalo and declared value of ₹ 41,49,475/-. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that the report was vague and held that the declaration regarding the description of the goods given by the respondents should be accepted. 5. Ld. SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal and seeks setting aside of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoration of the order of the Original Authority. 6. Ld. Advocate strongly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al. Under these circumstances, the claim by the Department that the assessment was provisional cannot be accepted. Once the assessment is not provisional, show cause notice for demanding duty should have been issued within six months from the relevant date. Undisputedly, show cause notices have been issued after six months. 8. In the light of the above, I do not find any valid reasons to interf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X