9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning the particular authority in the form of Section or Rule. Non-quoting or mis-quoting of the provisions of law will not make Show Cause Notice or adjudicating order invalid or illegal. The Appellants contention in this regards is not acceptable for the reason that the Show Cause Notice issued for enforcement of the conditions of Bond, the Show Cause Notice is not time barred. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue was about the interpretation of provisions of custom Act, Exim Policy and the notification issued thereof. Learned Commissioner has dropped substantial portion of the demand as per the directions of CESTAT and on the basis of permission granted by the Development Commissioner at a later date - penalty set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in Appeal No. Orderin- Appeal No. P-I/54-59/2004 dated 16.6.2004. During the same period, another Show Cause Notice, to demand custom duty forgone on capital goods and inputs imported duty free, in contravention of exemption Notification No.126/1994, was issued and confirmed. On an appeal made by the appellants, CESTAT, vide order No A/520 S/21/2011/CSTB/C-I dated 17.11.2011, remanded the matter back to Original Adjudicating Authority to consider the Order passed by Development Commissioner. Accordingly, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order, after considering the order of development commissioner Original Adjudicating Authority has set aside duty on capital goods but erroneously confirmed the demand of duty on inputs amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Authorised Representative for the department reiterated the findings of OIO and relied upon L R Brothers, Indo Flora Ltd 2009(235) ELT 324 (Tri-Delhi). 5. Heard rival submissions and perused the records of the case. The Learned Commissioner in the De novo adjudication has draft the demand pertaining to custom duty under capital goods cleared by the Appellants and has confirmed the demand to the extent of customs duty equivalent to that leviable on the input obtained as per para 3 of notification No.126/94 dated 03.06.1994. The inputs/consumables were used in the production of cut roses that were cleared in domestic market. The commissioner held that the Appellants have made, inter alia, the following omissions or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative it was held in the case of LR Brothers, Indo Flora Limited (supra) customs duty is chargeable on inputs gone into production of such non-excisable goods clear to DTA. In the result we uphold demand of duty of ₹ 2,97,419/- along with interest. 5.2 Coming to the issue of imposition on penalty on Shri Dinesh Bheda (Appeal No.C/867/2012). The Appellants submitted that when there is no seizure of goods provisions of Section 112 are not attracted. We find that the Learned Commissioner has dropped the seizure portion of the notice. Moreover, the issue was about the interpretation of provisions of custom Act, Exim Policy and the notification issued thereof. Learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
