9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant under CTH 4911 9990 has been accepted by the Department and the proceedings initiated vide the Show Cause Notice have been dropped. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information as to whether any appeal has been filed by the Department against such Order-in-Original or whether the same has been accepted by the Department. It is seen that the Department has accepted the decision passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva holding that the subject goods are to be classified under CTH 4911 9990. When this classification has been accepted, the Department cannot allege mis-classification for imports of the same goods made during the subsequent period. In POPULAR CARBONIC PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 Learned Counsel Shri B. Lakshmi Narasimhan appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading paper products such as printed thermal paper rolls, paper articles, paper sheets, lottery tickets, etc., in India. They supplied printed thermal paper rolls to the clients in India. These thermal paper rolls are used by banks, shopping malls, eateries, State Road Transport Corporation, etc. That during the relevant period, the appellant imported printed thermal paper rolls vide 18 Bills-of-Entry with the description printed paper name of bank/company rolls . These goods were classified by the appellant under CTH 4911 9990. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes. 2.2.2 After undertaking the above process, the goods were exported to India. On export, the supplier also obtained a Country of Origin Certificate on the basis of which the appellant has claimed the exemption. 2.3.1 He adverted to page 93 of the appeal paper book and referred to the Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2010 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Zone-II, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva for the imports made by the appellant in 2009; investigations were conducted alleging mis-classification of the goods and incorrect availment of benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. The Show Cause Notice issued, as above, raising allegation of mis-classification of goods and wrong availment of the above Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, it is not open for the Department to contend otherwise for subsequent periods. 2.3.3 Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Rosemerta Technologies Ltd. v. C.C. [2019 (11) TMI 1573 CESTAT, Chandigarh]; (ii) M/s. Popular Carbonic Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2021 (8) TMI 240 CESTAT, Chennai]; (iii) M/s. Mohak Hi Tech Specialty Hospital v. C.C.E. [2020 (11) TMI 152 CESTAT, New Delhi]. 2.4.1 It is further argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Show Cause Notice in this case has been issued by the Additional Director General (ADG) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for import of the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as after perusal of the records, we find that the issue on merits has been decided in the appellant‟s own case in Order-in-Original No. 11678/2015-16, NS-I/AM-I JNCH dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The classification adopted by the appellant under CTH 4911 9990 has been accepted by the Department and the proceedings initiated vide the Show Cause Notice have been dropped. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information as to whether any appeal has been filed by the Department against such Order-in-Original or whether the same has been accepted by the Department. The relevant portion of the reply dated 31.05.2021 to the RTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be under CTH 4911 9990, as contended by the appellant. The issue on merits is found in favour of the appellant. 7.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant has also raised a technical issue that the entire proceedings are vitiated as the Show Cause Notice issued by the ADG, DRI is without jurisdiction. In M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the DRI is not the Proper Officer for issuing Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said decision was followed by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Quantum Coal Energy (P) Ltd. cited supra. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Evershine Customs (C F) Pvt. Ltd. and The Two Step Trading Co.(supra) has also followed the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
