9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shore tank, the demand as raised by the Revenue was correctly dropped by the adjudicating authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/28 & 29/2007 - A/86336-86337/17/CB - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Shri T Vishwanathan, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per M V Ravindran: These appeals are filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Original Nos: 105/2005/CAC/CC/PK and 103/2005/CAC/CC/PK both dated 31/10/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of 80.47 MTs Phosphoric Acid, hence he is liable to discharge customs duty and also liable to penalty as notification exempted the goods which are imported for manufacture of fertilizers. It is his further submission that such non-utilization of the Phosphoric Acid came to light only when the investigation was taken over by the departmental officer. Hence, the demand by invoking the extended period and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty is justified. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has incorrectly dropped the proceedings initiated as adjudicating authority did not consider the notification in its correct perspective. 5. Learned C.A. on the other hand would draw my attention to the fact that Phosphoric Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court as reported in 2001 (130) ELT A265 (SC). 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the issue that falls for my consideration is whether quantity received short by the appellant of Phosphoric Acid during the period 1991 to 1995 needs to be subjected to customs duty by denying the benefit of exemption Notification claimed. 7. On perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the shortage indicated in the show-cause notice of 80.78 Mts, including the shortage of 65.301 MTs between the Ullage report of master vessel and the quantity discharged and received in shore tank; difference of 15 Mts. is also on the same ground; I also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
