9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice demanded duty under proviso to Section 28(1) and the demand was clearly time barred Commissioner in his order, although referring to violation of Notification No. 13/81, does not mention that in terms of the Bond executed by 100% EOU there is no time limit for demand of duty. Regarding Penalty - Held that: - once the goods are held not liable to confiscation, the question of penalty does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferee M/s. Trans Freight Containers vide their letter dt. 14.5.1999 to purchase the capital goods imported by the appellant. The permission was granted subject to conditions attached. A request was made by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner to accord them permission in terms of the above said letter of Development Commissioner. From the records it is clear that no action was taken on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 111(o) but at the same time imposed penalty under Section 112. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the amount of duty demand. The claim is that relevant date for ascertaining rates of duty is the actual date of payment of duty i.e. 26.3.2002. Accordingly, the duty works out to ₹ 12.40,260/-. The Commissioner did not agree on this point. The sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand was clearly time barred Commissioner in his order, although referring to violation of Notification No. 13/81, does not mention that in terms of the Bond executed by 100% EOU there is no time limit for demand of duty. However he still proceeds to confirm the duty under Section 28(1) of the Act. Further, the Additional Commissioner while holding that the goods are not liable to confiscati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
