9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') disposing of nine appeals filed by the respondents herein viz., Appeal Nos. C/281/02, C/282/02, C/283/02, C/275/04, C/273/04, C/274/04, C/493/04, C/494/04 and C/495/04. Appeal Nos. C/275/04, C/273/04, C/274/04, C/493/04, C/494/04 and C/495/04 have been allowed on the ground that the impugned show cause notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was time barred and no case for invocation of extended period of limitation provided by Section 28 of the Act was made out. The remaining three appeals i.e., Appeal Nos. C/281/02, C/282/02 and C/283/02 have been allowed on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2002 was issued proposing confiscation and imposition of penalty under the Act. The aforesaid Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs on 21.08.2002 holding the goods to be hazardous waste and, therefore, liable for confiscation, penalty, etc. The aforesaid order dated 21.08.2002 was assailed in appeal before the learned Tribunal. It appears that on 18.03.2003, further Show Cause Notices were issued by the DRI, Chennai, and also by DRI, Hyderabad, in respect of the earlier 18 consignments which were cleared by the respondent-importer. The said Show Cause Notices were based on the subsequent report of the EPTRI and NMDC in respect of the samples taken from consignment dated 24.12.2001 and 24.01.2002. It appears tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Notice dated 16.04.2002 and the report of the EPTRI and NMDC in respect of the samples from the consignments dated 24.12.2001 and 24.01.2002, the Revenue was already in the know of the relevant facts, it is difficult to understand as to how the Revenue could have the benefit of anything but the "normal" period of limitation to issue the Show Cause Notices dated 18.03.2003. The order of the learned Tribunal insofar as the six appeals are concerned, holding Show Cause Notices issued therein to be time barred and interfering with the adjudication orders dated 29.03.2004 and 23.09.2004, therefore, must have the approval of this Court. This will take the Court to the consideration of the remaining three appeals, i.e., Appeal Nos. C/281/02, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not an hazardous material but is a Copper Concentrate with the quantities of lead and cadmium being below the prescribed limit. The aforesaid point was raised before the Adjudicating Authority by the importer which contention was brushed aside by the Adjudicating Authority in its Order by observing that it is not known from where and on which date, the samples were received or sent to the EPTRI by the importer. From the materials on record, particularly, the cross examination of the Officer of the importer company, it appears that it had been the case of the importer that such sample was indeed sent to the EPTRI. No materials have been brought on record by the Revenue to enable the Court to take a contrary view in the matter. In the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
