9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed at the material time. The Revenue had sought to explain the delay on account of the litigation before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is also a fact that the Revenue issued show-cause notice during the pendency of this Writ Petition, which clearly indicates that the court did not bar issue of notice. This confirms the fact that the Court proceedings were not preventing Revenue from issuing show-cause notice in timely manner. The contention of the Revenue that the appellant during pendency of Writ Petition needs to be excluded, cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, we find that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. The impugned order cannot be sustained on this count. The fact that the goods cleared under transshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved against the aforesaid demand, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The appellants asserted before the lower authorities that transshipments permit, in respect of duty as has been demanded, were submitted before 11.2.2002, when the changes in the scope of Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone were made. They also prayed before the lower authorities that the notice issued to them is time barred as the show-cause notice was issued after a period of 6 months from the date of clearance of goods. Third contention raised before the lower authorities was that they have obtained the Essentiality Certificate which was required and, therefore, they were entitled to benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1.3.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the benefit of exemption cannot be extended under any of these notifications 4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival contentions. 5.1 We find that the appellants were clearing the goods on the basis of transshipment permits and when the definition of Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone were changed. As a result the duty liability arose in respect of the clearance made to area within the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone. The show-cause notice in respect of these clearances made was issued on 3.12.2002 for the clearance made from 11.2.2002 to 13.2.2002. The show-cause notice was issued beyond a period of six months prescribed at the material time. The Revenue had soug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment permit. However, benefit of exemption was denied despite these essentiality certificate on two grounds: - (i) That the said certificates were issued mentioning Notification No. 21/2002 and not under Notification No. 17/2001. Notification No. 21/2002 came into effect w.e.f. 1.3.2002 i.e. after the clearance made at transshipment permit, while Notification No. 17/2001 granting similar benefits was available at the material time. (ii) That the certificates were produced after the clearance made on the transshipment permit and not at the time of clearance. 5.3 We find that Notification No. 17/2001 which was applicable at the material time, granted similar concession as are granted by Notification No. 21/2002. It can be seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
