9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-In- Original alleged that the appellant has not disclosed the facts to the department that they have procured the duty free material from the M/s Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd against invalidation of advance licence. On this basis the larger period was invoked. The appellant vide letter 25.02.2010 again intimated that there is no violation of Para 4.16 of Handbook Procedure. From the above it is clear that the appellant have disclosed all the information as regard procurement of material under advance authorization from M/s Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts or Mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. The demand is clearly hit by limitations. Since the entire demand is under extended per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnatory of KEC International Ltd wherein it was contended that since no supporting manufacturer was endorsed by the Regional Authority and procurement under the licences were made before exports, duty free procurement was to be done mandatorily by the Mysore unit of the appellant only and not by their Silvassa unit which was not endorsed by the Regional Authority. Further, the proof of exports (Shipping bills) in respect of exports made against licence dated 19.03.2008 did not even depict the name of the appellant as supporting manufacturer. This has resulted in irregular availment of benefit of duty free procurement under advance licence to the extent of ₹ 6,61,05,308/-. 1.2 In the Show cause notice it was alleged that as per para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 12.06.2015 confirming the duty interest and penalty as proposed in the Show cause notice. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-original, appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Mehul Jivani, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued the case on merit as well as on limitation. The learned counsel post hearing also submitted a synopsis dated 15.09.2021. 3. Shri T.G Rathod, Learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He also filed a detailed written submission along with the compilation of case laws vide letter dated 09.09.2021. All the submissions were taken on record. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared that they are going to procure the raw material under advance authorization from M/s Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. The aforesaid letter has been acknowledged by the department on 24.11.2008. Further, the appellant vide letter 19.01.2010 also clarifies that there is no violation of Para 4.16 of handbook procedure. The said letter is scanned below: 4.2 The appellant vide letter 25.02.2010 again intimated that there is no violation of Para 4.16 of Handbook Procedure. From the above it is clear that the appellant have disclosed all the information as regard procurement of material under advance authorization from M/s Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts or Mis-declaration on the part of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
