9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT OF INDIA], where it was held that the service of notice to CHA cannot be considered as service of notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act - the “service of notice to CHA” cannot be equated to the “service of notice to the appellant”. Hence we are of the view that no notice has been served on the appellant - demand hit by limitation clause - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal for reconsideration on the point of limitation as well as classification. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 16.11.2006 confirmed the demand on limitation as well as on classification. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants are before the Tribunal. 2. None appeared for the appellant, however learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted a written submission . 3. The subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Heading 3902 as the Heading 3902 covers only polymers of polypropylene only in primary form. It is his submission that in the instant case the product not only contents the polymer but also has presence of mixed crystalline substances. In these circumstances the goods cannot be hold under 3902. 4. Learned A.R. relied on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, therefore, cannot be construed as a valid notice against the agent for the recovery of any duty from the agent under the proviso to Section 147(3). In fact, in the present case, on 9-10-1986, such notice could not have been served on the agent because on 9-10-1986, there was nothing which would lead the Assistant Collector of Customs to come to the conclusion that the duty could not be rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case, the proviso to Section 147(3) is not attracted. 5.1 We find that similar views have been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Krisons Electronics System Ltd. (supra). In view of the above we find that the service of notice to CHA cannot be equated to the service of notice to the appellant . Hence we are of the view that no notice has been served on the appellant. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
