9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tifications 53/1997-Cus dated 30.06.1997 and 52/2003 - Cus dated 31.03.2003. Out of the said imports mixed scrap, used motors and secondary core and wiring of transformer were processed and metal scrap was retrieved/segregated. Different types of metal scrap recovered from such activities were removed for DTA sale on payment of appropriate central excise duties in terms of Notification 2/95 - C.E. dated 04.01.1995. The said notification provides 50% exemption on goods allowed to be sold in DTA in accordance with provisions of EXIM Policy. During the Audit of the records of the Appellant it was observed that the Appellant was permitted to advance DTA sale on 20.10.2000 which shall be adjusted against subsequent DTA sale entitlement within tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warrant suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty. He submits that both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand only in terms of B-17 Bond that was executed by the Appellant. He submits that the adjudicating authority being barred by limitation has refrained from imposing penalty as proposed in the show cause notice and therefore the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) by not considering the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard has upheld the demand beyond the normal and extended period of limitation without satisfying the ingredients for the same. He has placed reliance on the following cases in support of his submissions: - C.P. Aquaculture (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Cus. 2011 (263) ELT 541 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the Department was unable to provide cogent reason to invoke the same. The fact that the adjudicating authority has dropped the penalty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice shows that the demand is patently time barred and there in no evidence on record to establish suppression of facts or malafide intention to evade duty. Therefore we find that the entire demand in this case is time barred as for the period of October 2000 - December 2000 show cause notice was issued on 15.02.2010 which is not only beyond normal limitation but also that the Department has incorrectly invoked extended period of limitation without adducing evidence or cogent reason in support of their claim. 05. In view of the above, we hold that the demand is barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
