9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of limitation cannot be invoked - Adjudicating Authority not imposed penalty on the Respondent, which were not challenged by the Revenue – therefore, demand on the basis of proviso to s.s. (1) of S.28 of Custom Act is not sustainable - C/260/2008-SM(BR) - 1118/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 28-5-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Sudhdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He refrained from imposing penalty on the Respondent and imposed penalties on the other parties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order against the Respondent. Hence the Revenue filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that it is a case of fraud and therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to get any benefit under the law. Here li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 349 (P H), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by Order dated 10-3-2008, in Special Civil Petition No. CC 3493/2008 (Commissioner of Customs, Jalandhar v. M/s. Leader Valves Ltd.) . 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority observed that there is nothing on record to infer that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "one year" and "six months", the words "five years" were substituted. In the present case, I find that there is no allegation that the importer has nct paid the duty by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, therefore, the demand of duty on the basis of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Realisation (BCER). In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority held that penalty is not imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Respondent, which were not challenged by the Revenue at any point of time. So, the case law relied upon by the ld. DR is not applicable. On the other hand, the demand of duty was confirmed, which is barred by limitation. Hence, I find that the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
