9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an to show receipt of the goods back in their unit - The appellant have not involved themselves in sale or diversion of goods. In fact they have themselves been a victim of a fraud. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression, misdeclaration etc. to invoke extended period of limitation cannot be sustained - the penal provision under Section 114A cannot be sustained. Interest u/s 28AB of CA - Held that:- The bond in the said notification relates only to the fulfilment of the export obligation condition. The obligation arising in the Act cannot be by passed by notification thus the appellants are liable to pay interest under Section 28AB. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/77, 80, 85/08 & C/CO/46/08 - Order No. A/86734-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had claimed cenvat credit and which the job workers mis- appropriated. The second is the impugned proceedings for recovery of customs duty in respect of imported goods misappropriated by the job worker. The proceedings in respect of cenvat credit on indigenously procured goods was settled by the Tribunal order dated 18.01.2005 in Appeal no. E/639-641/2004. Ld. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that job work is a permitted activity under the policy and sending of goods to job worker does not amount to sale or transfer of goods. In this regard, they relied on the following two decisions:- a) Ashok Enterprises vs. CC 2005 (186) ELT 497 (T) b) Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. 2010 (249) ELT 273 (T) 2. He argued that in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of fact are present. He relied on the decision of MMK Jewellers 2008 (225) ELT 3 (SC) in this regard. He further argued that even extended period cannot be invoked. 4. He argued that interest under Section 28AB is not applicable as the notification in itself provides a complete core. He argued that the notification provides for interest only in case of failure to fulfil conditions and to ensure this, the notification requires a bond to be executed. He argued that in the appellant s case no bond was taken in terms of condition (ii) of the said notification as the appellant had already fulfilled the export obligation. 5. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 6. We have gone through the rival submissions. The appellants have argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded period of limitation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penal provision under Section 114A cannot be sustained. 9. As regards interest under Section 28AB is concerned, the appellant s only defence is that the notification 30/97- Custom provides a complete code in itself and there is no provision for demand of interest. It has been argued that in terms of condition (ii) of such notification even the bond has been done away as they had completed the export obligation prior to import. We do not find merit in the said submission. The bond in the said notification relates only to the fulfilment of the export obligation condition. The obligation arising in the Act cannot be by passed by notification thus the appellants are liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
