9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence has been put forth to prove the charge of wilful suppression by the appellant and justification of extended period of limitation - SCN not having been issued within the normal period of limitation will have to be considered as time-barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/40572/2015 - Final Order No. 40113 / 2018 - Dated:- 16-1-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts are that the appellant had obtained a EPCG authorization No.0530153782 dated 21.10.2010 in favour of the appellant. The said au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order upheld the order of the original authority and rejected the appeal. Appellants are therefore before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan made oral submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : i) In the initial stage of obtaining license itself they had sought amendment of authorization and accordingly endorsement that this license is made invalid for direct import was made on the body of the Zero Duty Scheme License No.0592034674. Ld.Advocate also drew attention to page 46 of the appeal file with regard to invalidation letter No.664 dt. 21.10.2010 which allowed for obtaining the required capital goods from the indigenous supplier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. A.R Shri A. Cletus supports the impugned order. He submits that just because the import was allowed by oversight that does not absolve the importer of their responsibility. It is very clear that appellants have done this with intent to evade duty liability. He further states that the assessing officers are hard pressed with considerable work in their hands, on a daily basis and such oversight may well have happened inadvertently. But the appellant cannot take shelter of such oversight to wriggle out of the duty and penal liability. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. Indubitably, the appellants have been in the wrong in having cleared the impugned items on the invalidated license. Nonetheless, it is not the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
