9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted by both the parties and thus, has attained finality - By the time the above order of this Bench was passed, the second Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2004 was already on board and we do not see any whisper about the same anywhere in the order of this Bench and in particular, any issue being made as to the Show Cause Notice being issued much after the period of limitation. Hence, we can only say that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as, apparently, it has missed the bus. Further, when the order of this Bench which was passed against the Order-in-Appeal wherein the Order-in-Original was challenged, which was passed on the second Show Cause Notice, has become final now, we have to only hold that by virtue of the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hine under Project Contract and Ultrasonic tester and Direct Reading Spectrometer on merits and had deferred import of Portable X-Ray Analyzer and Mass Spectrometer. This, according to the Revenue, was clearly contrary to the Instructions of the Board dated 08.08.1987 and the Standing Order No. 35/87-MCH wherein it was clarified that the goods once registered with project import, could not be de-registered, that is to say, concurrent benefit of any other exemption notification could not be extended by classifying them on merits. 1.3 Accordingly, the two items namely, Ultrasonic Tester valued at Rs.3,71,961/- and Direct Reading Spectrometer valued at Rs.13,40,230/- were assessed at project rate instead of normal rate and a Demand Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting. Further, it was also contended that the adjudicating authority had passed the Order-in-Original on 19.12.1997 and the Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2004 issued against M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. was at least after ten long years which was also unsustainable in the eye of law. 2.2 The adjudicating authority, however, after hearing the appellant and considering the reply filed during adjudication, held that the fact of merger of M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. with M/s. GKW Ltd. indicated that all the assets and liabilities were transferred to M/s. GKW Ltd. and further, to M/s. Graphite India Ltd. i.e., the appellant, which took over M/s. GKW Ltd. including its assets, benefits and liabilities. On merits, the adjudicating authority confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and we have also perused the orders of the lower authorities placed on record. 7. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal is sustainable in the eye of law? 8.1 We have indicated in the earlier paragraphs that in the first round of litigation before this forum, an appeal was filed by the importer and this Bench, after hearing both sides and after waiving the pre-deposit, vide Final Order No. 686/2010 dated 18.06.2010 chose to set aside the impugned order by observing that the appellant had no knowledge of the adjudication against M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
