9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of avoiding the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the issues are covered. But still the issues as to whether the respondent can demand differential customs duty under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 and whether the respondent has got jurisdiction to demand differential customs duty beyond one year from the date of show cause notice are to be decided only by the appellate authority, but not by this Court. The second contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order is also not acceptable. In any event, this Court is not inclined to entertain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not revoked the registration certificate Sl.No.1/2008/LTG-V dated 16.9.2008 by denying the exemption of customs duty under Notification No.25/99-Cus., dated 28.2.99 read with Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 for the import of parts made for the manufacture of Px40 Micom range of products for the entire period covered under the show cause notice dated 4.12.2014. Finally in the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand of customs duty of ₹ 21,99,45,177/- and also charged interest on the above said customs duty under Section 28AA of the Customs Act along with penalty of ₹ 21,99,45,177/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, making it clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry on relay. Subsequently, when the petitioner requested for issuance of certificate required under the Customs Notification No.25/99 dated 28.2.99 and enclosed Annexure III vide their letter dated 1.4.2014, the respondent, instead of issuing the certificate, asked the petitioner to explain as to (i) why items declared and cleared as relays under chapter heading 85 36 should not be reclassified under sub heading 9032 8990, (ii) why the items imported should not be classified as parts of automation apparatus under Central Excise Tariff heading 9032 9000, (iii) why the permission granted for import of competence under concessional rate of duty as per Customs Notification No.25/99 dated 28.2.99, should not be denied, as the components imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2014 for two types of relays viz., HA/HA-MIDOS range of relays and MICOM range of relays. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, having filed the reply dated 22.12.2014, appeared personally on 14.1.2015 raising several grounds. But the respondent has passed the impugned order, which is non-speaking, ignoring the fact that the respondent cannot demand differential customs duty under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 and has no jurisdiction to demand differential customs duty beyond one year from the date of show cause notice. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Prima facie, the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
