9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the returns filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, the appellant has disclosed the entire clearances to the Revenue therefore, the charge of suppression of facts or misdeclaration cannot be invoked against the appellant - It is a failure on the part of the Revenue to detect the mistake of the appellant - demand is not sustainable on limitation. Since the demand is not sustainable the penalties imposed on the appellant and its Director are also set-aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/11437-11438/2016-DB - Final Order No. A/11721-11722 / 2018 - Dated:- 14-8-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri Neerav Mainkar, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is to be treated as DTA clearance. 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. He further argued that the appellant is not a status holder and therefore, prior permission of Development Commissioner is required for clearances in terms of Para 6.8 of Foreign Trade Policy. Ld. AR further argued that the appellant has executed B-17 bond and in terms of the said bond duty can be demanded any time without hindrance of limitation. He further argued that the facts in the case of Meghmani Dyes Intermediates Limited (supra) are different in so far as in the said case the appellant had permission to sell goods in DTA whereas, in the instant case, the appellant have no permission to sale in DTA. 4. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions made by both the sides. From the records it is clearly seen that the respondent had declared to the department that they would be availing the benefit of Notification 23/2003 in respect of advance DTA sales to be effected by them in terms of the permission granted by the Development Commissioner as early as in 2004 itself. Therefore, the respondent cannot be, said to have withheld any information from the department. The respondent s plea that they were entitled for the benefit of exemption under Notification 23/2003 under the belief that they were entitled for benefit of such Notification cannot be said to be a mis-declaration as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
