2015 (12) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri Anand Nainawati, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.M. Saleem The Appellant herein is before us, being aggrieved by the findings of the Order-in-Original No.KDL/COMMR/04/2008, dt.29.01.2008, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. 2. The Appellant M/s Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd imported Fluorescent Glass Tubes and declared the same in B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion and therefore he contents that there was no suppression of facts in the Bills of Entry. As the goods were examined and assessed finally, the impugned Show Cause Notice is hit by the mischief of limitation, since the show cause notice is issued beyond the normal period of 6 months which was the time limit at the relevant time. 4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Customs charge. As the Assessment had become final, the relevant date of issuance of Show Cause Notice would be reckoned by the normal time limit, unless the ingredients for invoking the extended period under Section 28 of Customs Act are attracted. The Department was aware that the goods attracted MPR assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, before final assessment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X