9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h effect from 2.4.2011 under Section 28 Show Cause Notice could have been issued within one year. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation is not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that demands confirmed against the appellant are within time. The appellant has taken the argument that the orders u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 62 is not passed therefore, the proceedings are not sustainable. We find that in this case there is no question of enhancement of payment of duty by the Adjudicating Authority by reassessing the goods under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Infact provision of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act are not involved in this case. Therefore, question of passing order under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter of Fabricated Mica products. The said appellant/exporter had exported Fabricated Mica during the month of May, 2014 to August, 2014 vide 22 (Twenty Two) shipping bills as mentioned in the impugned Order-in- Original. (b) During the scrutiny of records it was detected that though cess @3.5 % on exports of Mica products under HS Code 25.25 68.14 was leviable, but no such cess was levied or not paid in respect of the impugned shipping bills which were self assessed by the appellant/exporter without the payment of the mica cess applicable on such products. (c ) Therefore, a Demand Cum Show Cause Notice was issued from F. No. S41 (Misc)-25/14 DBK (Pt) dated 30.04.2015, under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, whereby the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Therefore, demands are not sustainable. 7. He further submitted that as there is no proposal in the Show Cause Notice therefore, interest cannot be demanded from the appellant. 8. On the other hand the Ld. Authorized Representative opposed the contention of the appellant. The Ld. Counsel of the appellant submits that in this case provision under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. As there is a no case of enhancement of duty under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. He further submitted that in this case, the Show Cause Notice has been issued by invoking provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, on detection that the appellant has not paid the cess, in that circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment that the orders under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 62 is not passed therefore, the proceedings are not sustainable. 17. We find that in this case there is no question of enhancement of payment of duty by the Adjudicating Authority by reassessing the goods under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. 18. Infact provision of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act are not involved in this case. Therefore, question of passing order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act does not arise. Accordingly, the said argument fails. 19. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in terms of Section 129 D(2) of the Customs Act, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable. We find that in this case the Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
