9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months as envisaged under Section 28 of Customs Act 1962 - Time limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The plastic granules of various grades were imported by the appellant under duty free import authorization scheme read with Customs Notification no.40/2006-Cus dated 1/5/2006. In appeal no.C/41597/2014, the goods were cleared prior to 19.02.2009. The Notification no.17/2009-Cus dated 19.02.2009 had brought in condition no.(iii) (a) by which the transferee importer has to execute a bond that the goods will be used within six months in manufacture of dutiable products. It is noted that the amendment was challenged by many importers before the Hon ble High Court of Madras and the Hon. ble High Court vide judgement reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had imported plastic granules and cleared them under DFIA scheme. The period of dispute in these appeals range prior to 19/2/2009 and after such date. As per notification No.40/2006, the appellants were eligible to avail exemption from basic customs duty and additional customs duty. Later amendment was brought forth in the said notification by Notification no.17/2009 dated 19.02.2009, whereby a condition was introduced. As per the condition (iii) (a) the transferee importer has to execute a bond to the effect that the inputs would be consumed within six months in the manufacture of dutiable goods. The department was of the view that the appellants have mis-declared as they failed to fulfill the condition and are therefore liable to pay duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 had considered the facts as well as the amendments brought to the notification. It was held by the Tribunal that as the Show Cause Notice is issued beyond the period of six months as envisaged under Section 28 of Customs Act 1962, the Show Cause Notice is time barred. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel that the disputed period being the transition period when the notification 40/2006 was amended by adding a condition into it, there is no intention to evade payment of duty and is only a procedural violation. There was no conscious act on the part of the importer to mis-declare or violate any provisions of law. The Ld. counsel prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 4. The Ld. AR Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer as the period is the transition period of the introduction of the amendment. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.40487-40490/2020 dated 30/1/2020 held as under: We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. We follow the ruling by Hon ble Madras High Court in the appellant s own case in respect of Appeal No.C/41504/2014 and hold that the demand in respect of bill of entry for re-determination raised by applying retrospective amendment, is not sustainable. We note that these are the cases where departmental officers made the assessment and the appellant had declared that they were availing the said Notification No.40/2006, which exempted payment of Additional Customs duty. In case appellants were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
