9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 16.03.2005. The adjudicating authority has rightly come to the conclusion that Given the fact that the Bills of Entry filed by them after submission of clarification were assessed by the Department from time to time without raising any query or objection, their bonafides cannot be suspected. In these circumstances, the Respondents cannot be blamed of suppressing any facts or wilful misstateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records. 5. Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority has upheld the Order-in-Original which has dropped the demands raised on the respondent while upholding the demands within the period of limitation with a dispute of misdeclaration of value of goods as reported. 6. On cursory look of the submissions made by Ld. DR and perusal of records, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demands raised for the period beyond six months from the date of show cause notice are hit by limitation while upholding the demands within a period of six months. The said adjudication order was challenged in appeal by revenue before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority in the order has held that the adjudicating authority was correct and rejected the appeal of revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orn out bushes, the Respondents vide their letter dated 28.03.2005 clarified that the valuation charges would not form part of the assessable value. Subsequently they imported a number of consignments without including the valuation charges in the Bills of Entry on a bonafide belief that the clarification given them was accepted by the department. Given the fact that the Bills of Entry filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
