9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the period 11.3.2013 to 25.5.2015 the appellant had imported and cleared assorted wines, liquors, bear etc from the said bonded warehouse by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No. 91/09-Cus dated 11.09.2009 by debiting Served From India Scheme Scrip (SFIS) issued paragraph 3.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy which was not in their own name but in the name of the third party service providers. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to demand duty on the goods imported during the said period by the appellant, to confiscate above goods and to impose penalty. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant filed bill of entry in the name and style as M/s. Anant Wines and Spirits in the account of Mashor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.09.2009 and thus bills of entry have been assessed wherein the name of SFIS holder has been written and a letter has been issued to the Deputy Commissioner by the Inspector for debiting the said bill of entry in the account of SFIs holder. It is also fact that the goods imported by the licence holder and in the circumstance, on merit the appellant has not contravened the provisions of Notification No.91/09-Cus dated 11.09.2009 as the goods were not be transferred or sold. We also take note of the fact that bills of entry has been assessed and there is no allegation against the appellant of mis-declaration or mis-classification or suppression of facts, therefore without challenging the bills of entry, the proceedings are not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the same, the show cause notice issued to the appellant is not sustainable. 9. We also take note that some demand has been raised by invoking the extended period of limitation without alleging willful suppression of facts or malafide intention of the appellant to evade payment of duty. In the show cause notice is merely alleged that the appellant has taken the benefit of Notification No.91/09-Cus dated 11.09.2009 wrongly. In circumstance, we hold that the extended period of limitation is also not invokable. 10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders. The same are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in the open court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
