2015 (10) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant filed Bills of Entry for import of Steam Coal and the same was declared as such in the Bills of Entry under the claim of Notification No.12/2012. The Bills of Entry were assessed accordingly and the goods were cleared. 2. Thereafter a show-cause notice dt. 27/06/2013 was issued to the appellant alleging that the coal imported by them was not Steam Coal but was Bituminous Coal and as such the benefit of Notification No.12/2012 was not available to them. Accordingly demand was raised which was confirmed by the Commissioner along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. 3. The order passed by the Commissioner was put to challenge by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its Final Order No.21344/2014 dt. 19/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot provisionally assessed and as such the appellant cannot ask for re-assessment of the same after one year. Accordingly in the operative portion, the Commissioner observed that I reject the contention of the importer that re-assessment of shipping bills is time barred. We note that the dispute in the appeal relates to the Bills of Entry and not to the shipping bills. The use of the expression shipping bills by the Commissioner cannot be considered to be a typographical error and the same reflects upon non-application of mind by the Commissioner. Further it is not the assessee who is seeking re-assessment of the Bills of Entry. It is the Revenue who initiated proceedings against the assessee by way of issuance of a show-cause notice. If the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d which falls within the limitation period, the appellant has made an alternative ground claiming benefit under Notifications No.127/2011-Cus. and No.64/2012-Cus. which provide concessional rate of duty in respect of imports from Indonesia. Though the appellants have produced documentary evidences to show that the imports are from Indonesia but the same were not accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has not produced the originals. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant explains that they had purchased a part consignment from another importer and the original evidences are with the importer and it is not possible for them to produce the originals. He pleads that the said certificates produced by the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X