9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are supported by technical test opinion and due admission of such technical specification - the appellant is outside the scope and purview of the Notification dated 01.03.2005 and accordingly, was liable to pay applicable Customs duty on the goods imported by it. Since the provisions of Rule 8 of Customs Rules, 1996 do not have any application to the case of the appellant, there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Central Excise Officer, having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant to issue the Show Cause Notice and adjudication of the matter under Section 28 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar cannot be sustained, as he is not the Jurisdictional Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said goods will not be eligible for the duty exemption provided under the Notification dated 01.03.2005. In this context, the Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2015 issued by the Department was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Alwar vide the Adjudication Order dated 24.08.2016 (for short, the impugned order ), wherein Customs Duty demand of ₹ 5,92,39,164/- alongwith interest was confirmed on the appellant under the proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (for short, referred to as the Customs Rules, 1996 ). Besides, the impugned order has also imposed equal amount of penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05. 2.2 The alternative submission of the ld. Advocate is that though the Notification No.44/2011 Cus. (N.T.) dated 06.07.2011 has been issued in terms of Section 2 (34) of the Customs Act, 1962 assigning Central Excise Officer to function as the proper officer‟, but no Notification has been issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, in appointing such officer as the Customs Officer‟. Thus, he submitted that the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant is not empowered to issue the Show Cause Notice for recovery of the Customs Duty. In this context, ld. Advocate has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Molex India Ltd. -2015 (317) ELT 250 (Kar.) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Strips, Copper Tuber, Polythene Compound etc. at nil rate of duty, for manufacture of RF Feeder Cable, by claiming the benefit under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005 (Sl. No. 33), as amended. The said Notification exempts all goods specified in the appended table, when imported into India, from the whole of Customs duty. Sl. No.28 of the said exemption Notification covers Electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 80 V, of a kind used for telecommunications falling under sub-heading 8544 49. Whereas, Sl. No.29 covers Electric conductors, for a voltage exceeding 80V, but not exceeding 1000 V, fitted with connectors, of a kind used for telecommunications , falling under sub-heading 8544 42. Serial No.33 covers all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Head and Authorised Signatory as well as Shri B.R. Mishra, Manager (Excise) of the appellant, in their voluntary statements dated 22.02.2011 and 17.03.2011 tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have admitted that the cable manufactured by the appellant is a type of Coaxial Cable , as both the conductors are in the same axis. Further, those officers of the appellant have also admitted that the product BTS RF Feeder is in-fact, a cable used for radio frequency signal travel and it is not a conductor for transmission of electric current. Since the officers of the appellant furnished such statements voluntarily, which had never been retracted; and in view of the fact that the appellant had not produced any credible evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the appellant, there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Central Excise Officer, having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant to issue the Show Cause Notice and adjudication of the matter under Section 28 of the Act. 8. Even otherwise, we note that the claim of Revenue that Rule 8 of the Customs Rules, 1996 provides for recovery of Customs Duty by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer by enforcing bond is not tenable. The Customs duty on the imported goods was assessed by the officers at the port of import. They are only competent to vary the assessment on the basis of additional/new evidence unearthed after the initial assessment. In the present case, without reference to or action by such assessing officer, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
