9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20% as assessed in terms of the notification. A demand notice for Rs.49,062/- being the differential amount between 30% and 20% was despatched to the appellant as well as to their CHA on 28.08.1995. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.2,20,777/- for the reason that the appellants have not produced end-use certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The said order was also despatched to the appellant as well as their CHA on 03.11.1999. However, the appellant contended that they came know to about the demand notice and the order confirming the duty only when the Revenue Recovery Unit initiated steps for recovery of the amount. The appellant then obtained a copy of the order passed by the original authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served upon the appellant. It is submitted that after a delay of 14 long years a copy of the order dated 03.11.1999 was served on their employee through Delhi Customs on 12.11.2009. However, the copy of the SCN was never served on them. On perusal of the order, it indicated that the SCN was issued on 28.08.1995 for the differential duty demand of Rs.49,062/- being the difference in the rate of Basic Customs Duty which was applied being 20% instead of 30%. However, the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice and confirmed a higher duty of Rs.2,20,777/- alleging that the appellant has not produced the certificate from Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, in whose jurisdiction their factory manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1962 demanding duty to the tune of Rs.49,062/- for the reason that the exemption is only for duty that is in excess of 30% and not 20%. However, it is seen that amount of Rs.2,20,777/- has been confirmed by the original authority on the ground that the appellant has not produced end-use certificate. Indeed, the said finding is beyond the scope of the SCN. On perusal of Notification No.89/1994, we find that there is no such condition attached to the goods imported under List-C. The argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel alleging that the original authority has confirmed a higher amount on grounds which are not alleged in the SCN and has thus traversed beyond the SCN is not without substance. There is also no evidence available from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
