9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a show cause notice was issued and for some other reasons which the revenue found in the course of investigation relating to one M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd. The Appellants herein filed their reply. In the show cause notice it was set out that M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd., were not only importing consignments in their own name but also in the name of other companies and two such consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnments plus duty and clearance charges from M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd., as admitted by the Department in the said para my clients have never misdeclared the value of the imported goods. Considering the reply and the material the A.O. directed the Appellant herein to pay duty of Rs. 11,11,339/- short levied along with interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act. No penalty was imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962 it would be clear that once the owners are known no duty could have been imposed on the appellant herein. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, 1991 (56) E.L.T. 739 (Bom.). 5. On the other hand on behalf of the Revenue learned Counsel submits that the appellants were the importers, who had filed the bill of ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that on subsequent investigation the revenue came across material showing violation of the provisions of Customs Act and the Rules would not result in holding that the person who had paid the duty and filed bill of entry cannot be held to be the owner. In the case of Sampat Raj Dugar (supra) this Court was considering the issue Section 2(26) in the context of confiscation. That Judgment real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
