9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being not maintainable. - C/41906/2015 - 40550/2017 - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Mehul Jivani, C.A For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Appellant has preferred appeal against letter 8.7.2015 of Additional Commissioner addressed to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, 'A' Division, Chennai-I Commissionerate directing that the decision of Commissioner rejecting the extension of warehousing permission for Rhodium Octonate Dimer imported in 2008 and Solvias Ligand SL-M004-1 imported in 2001 may be intimated to the assessee immediately. In consequence, Superintendent of Central Excise, A-1 Range, Office of the Asst. Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of equal penalty. 2. Aggrieved by this communication, appellants have come before this forum in appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri Mehul Jivani, ld.Consultant referred to his affidavit dt. 16-12-2006 submitted before Tribunal in an earlier hearing and submits that the issue concerns remaining unused quantity of Rhodium Octonate Dimer imported vide Bill of Entry No.672894 dt. 07.08.2008 for manufacture of export of finished goods for a specified project (FCI-1315) and remainder of Solvias Ligand SI-M004-1 imported vide Bill of Entry No.315845 dt. 09.10.2010. As the project itself having being stopped, items remained unutilized. Although the said goods had been warehoused, it appears that no permission was so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amurugan, Ld. A.R for Revenue refers to the letter dt. 23.09.2016 submitted in court, in response to certain clarifications raised by the Bench on an earlier occasion, wherein, inter alia, it has been informed that appellant had suo moto destroyed the goods on 09.09.2015 without the satisfaction of the bond officer and that a Show Cause Notice No.11/2016 dt. 17.08.2016 has been issued by the Asst. Commissioner, 'A' Division demanding duty of ₹ 1,55,63,903/- being the import duty on the aforesaid unused Rhodium Octanoate Dimer Salvias Lignad kept beyond the re-warehousing period and apparently suo moto destroyed by the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 6. In my view, the first a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 129A ibid cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. 7.3 Appeal therefore will fail the test of maintainability itself. 7.4 In any case, on the disputed issue a fresh SCN has been issued by the department. Thus the appellant is at liberty to come back after culmination of proceedings thereat, if felt necessary, at the appropriate time, subject to such appeal being within the ambit of Section 129A ibid. 7.5 Appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable. 7.6 Department is however directed to adjudicate the above SCN No.11/2016 dt. 17.08.2016 giving full opportunity to the appellant to present its case. It goes without saying that department shall provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant to present its case. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
