9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India is also envisaged in the very same notification. It is an acknowledged fact that the containers remained with the custodian/government and hence the scope for illicit usage of non-duty paid containers is non-existent. In these circumstances, there is no justification for invoking of the provisions of section 111 the Customs Act 1962 as well as section 28 of Customs Act 1962 - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/1099/2004 - A/86338/17/CB - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Arun Mehta, Advocate for the appellant Shri M K Mall, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: C J Mathew. This appeal by M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms, Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre [2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC)] to hold that such demand of duty attracts section 125 of Customs Act 1962. 4. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representative and Learned Counsel for appellant. On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2009 (244) ELT 581 (Tri-Chennai)]. 5. We observe that the original authority has erroneously placed reliance on section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 to recover duty without adducing any evidence to conclude that the ingredients for invoking the extended period are present while, at the same time, acknowledging the existence of a bond furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced the appellant on notice of intent to rely upon section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. 6. In addition to the non-sustainability of the notice for recovery of duty, the facts pertaining to the non-compliance of conditions prescribed in notification no.104/94 dated 16 th March 1994 should not be lost sight of. It is acknowledged that the said containers had not been taken into the custody of either the appellant or any assignee of the appellant. It is recorded that one of the containers had been seized by an agency empowered under the Customs Act 1962 and that others remained with the custodian appointed under Customs Act, 1962 along with the imported goods contained therein. In the circumstances of the containers being in the custody of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
