9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f suppression or misdeclaration by the respondent in the Bill of Entry and invoices that at no point of time the goods cleared by them contained alcohol as an ingredient and alcohol was found as one of the ingredients for the product, the demand raised beyond the period of six months can be said to be barred by the law of limitation ? (b) Whether or not in view of the suppression and misdeclaration on the part of the respondent, proviso to Section-28 of the Customs Act, 1962 would be applicable considering the facts of the case ? (c) Whether in view of the suppression of facts and willful misstatement on the part of the respondent, Deputy Commissioner was justified in issuing notice after the period of six months and whether the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in granting benefit of Notification No.02/95-CE to the respondent? 2. Heard Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue and Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on notice being issued by this Court on 16.9.2008. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present Tax Appeal are that the respondent is having its place of business at Kandla Free Trade Zone and it is engaged in manufacture of cosmetics and toilet preparations. The Ministry of Commerce has granted an industrial license on 18.12.1984 under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for manufacturing of cosmetics and toilet preparation like per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Act, 1944 or where such articles are not excisable on payment of an amount equal to customs duty leviable on such articles as if imported as such. 4. Four show causes notices were issued on the respondent alleging therein that the respondent had obtained necessary permission vide license No. GC/404 dated 16.10.1995 from the Food Drug Control Authorities for manufacture of perfumes, toiletries, deodorants etc. by declaring that one of the ingredients for the products is 'alcohol'. However, on going through the bills of entry and the invoices filed by the respondent for import of such goods as well as while making clearance of the goods to Domestic Tariff Area, it was noticed that the respondent, at no point of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2002 and the proceedings were dropped. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the Revenue filed an Appeal before CESTAT which Appeal came to be dismissed and order passed by the Commissioner was confirmed by the CESTAT. It is this order of the CESTAT dated 13.6.2007 which is under challenge in the present Tax Appeal. 6. Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue has submitted that the issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the demand was barred by the limitation. However, the Tribunal misdirected itself on the basis of contentions urged by the respondent and has decided the matter absolutely on irrelevant and unsustainable ground. On the basis of earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the order passed by the authorities below. As far as the issue regarding limitation is concerned, the Commissioner has at length discussed this aspect in his order. While referring to para-3(b) of the show cause notice, the Commissioner observed that it has been clearly stated that M/s. Baccarose Perfumes Beauty Products Ltd., obtained necessary permission vide license No. DC/404 dated 16.10.1995 from the Food Drug Control Authorities for manufacture of perfumes, toiletries, deodorants etc., by declaring that one of the ingredients for the the products is 'alcohol' . Based on this he observed that, the use of alcohol has been declared in the above license itself. Further, on scrutiny of the import invoices produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period of six months. When this order was challenged before the CESTAT by the Revenue, the CESTAT observed in its order that the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated in four show cause notices on the ground that extended time limit cannot be invoked in the said case. It was however observed by the CESTAT that the Commissioner has not decided issue on merits and while considering the issue on merits the CESTAT observed that the issue as to whether goods imported by the respondent in Free Trade Zone subjected to only certain process like repacking from bulk to consumer pack will be satisfying the condition of exemption Notification No.133/94-Cus dated 22.6.1994 and whether the process undertaken in this case on the imported produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
