9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod, the Anti Dumping Duty was required to be paid by the appellant. It is found that though the show cause notice has not demanded duty under the provision of Central Excise Act particularly under section 3 and Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003, but has still demanded the same as per calculations of aggregate Customs Duty which are the borrowed machinery provisions under section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The lapse on the part of the department is not such which has denied any natural justice to the appellant. As they were aware of the nature of duty sought to be charged being under Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 as is clear from their submissions made before the adjudicating authority, same therefore on merits is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Polypropylene Spun Bond Non-Woven Fabrics. They imported raw-material Polypropylene from Singapore for use in manufacture for the final product. They also made DTA clearances during the impugned period of 01 August, 2009 to 31.03.2015 as per permission accorded to them by the Development Commissioner after processing the raw-material on payment of applicable Customs Duties as per Section 3(i) of the Central Excise act, 1944. The show cause notice was issued to them on 19.06.2015 demanding Anti Dumping Duty on imported Polypropylene used for the manufacture of finished goods and the same was demanded by invoking provision of Notification No. 5/94-CUS read with Notification No. 52/2003-CUS dated 31.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. - Ahmd.) - Abubakar Ismail Kapadia vs CCE ST, Surat-l 2022 (381) E.LT. 407 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Kaybee Tex Spin Ltd vs CC, AHMEDABAD 2.1 The learned Counsel also pleaded that invocation of extended period as well as levy of penalty was improper, in the factual matrix of the matter. 3. As against this, the Learned AR justified findings in Order-In-Original and drew our attention to para 3.10 in 3.11 of the impugned order stating that w.e.f 10.05.2008 amendment was brought in to require payment of Anti Dumping Duty even on the DTA clearance on the raw-material contained in the manufacture goods supply to DTA. He also stated the case law quoted by the appellants were prior to that date and therefore not applicable after coming into f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable. Simply stating that audit does not check thoroughly but only on selected basis is nothing but exercise of undermining the purpose of departmental audit.. It also does not bring on record as to what records were checked/not checked by the audit, while giving such findings. We also find that department while demanding duty was not sure of the provision of law under which the same had to be demanded and even the penalty has been imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, whereas the duty should have been demanded under Central Excise Act and penalty imposed under Central Excise Act/ Rules only. 5. We therefore, in view of the above factual details of the matter, hold that the demand can be sustained only for the normal period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
