9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be disposed of on the ground of limitation itself. We find that dispute relates bill of entry No.7216037 filed on 24.10.2016, bill of entry No.7250924 filed on 27.10.2016 whereas bill of entry No.8389062 was filed on 31.01.2017, however the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021. We find that the dispute which was raised by the department is on the basis of the information available on import invoice, bill of lading which are vital documents for the purpose of processing the bill of entry and assessment thereof. In the bill of entry itself the name of OCI is mentioned. In the bill of lading name of Lu Xi is clearly mentioned. Therefore, for purpose of making the present case all the information were gathered only from those document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination to the extent of invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequent imposition of penalty under Section 114 A of the Act. The issue involved is whether the appellant is liable for the benefit under Sr. No.4 of the Notification No.21/2016- CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016 wherein, ADD at the rate of 122.14 USD per M.T. is to be levied where the producer is Shandong Liaocheng Luxi Sixth Chemical Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and the exporter is Luxi Chemical (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd, Hong Kong. It is the case of the department that the ADD at the rate of 279.78 USD per M.T. is to be levied a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, when the bill of Lading shown the name of exporter as M/s. Lu Xi Chemical (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. then there is no reason to hold that the exporter is not M/s. Lu Xi Chemical (Hong Kong) Ltd. but the M/s.OCI. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- MMTC v. STO AIR 1999 SC 121; British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Versus Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries 1990 (48) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.); J.V. Gokal Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Sales-Tax (Inspection); Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs. Rudra VyaparchemPvt. Ltd. 2.2 Without prejudice, he also submits that all the information regarding the invoicing by OCI and name of Lu Xi appearing on the Bill of Lading was before the custom authority while filing the bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lading which are vital documents for the purpose of processing the bill of entry and assessment thereof. In the bill of entry itself the name of OCI is mentioned. In the bill of lading name of Lu Xi is clearly mentioned. Therefore, for purpose of making the present case all the information were gathered only from those documents which were very much available at the time of filing of bill of entry. Therefore, there is absolutely no suppression of the fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the ingredients to invoke extended period in terms of Section 28 (4) are not available in the facts of the present case. For the bill of entry dated 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016 and 31.01.2017, the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021 that is muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
