9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dated 9-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 28,17,072/- with penalty of Rs. 28 lakhs on appellant No. 1, M/s. Asian Exports, and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant No. 2, the Director of the firm, Shri Rajeev Khandelwal. 2. The appellants are engaged in the export of the goods. They imported brass scrap duty free against two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the show cause notice and maintained that the duty demand was time-barred. The Commissioner through the impugned order confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on the appellants, as detailed above. 3. The learned Counsel has solely contested the validity of the impugned order on the ground of limitation. According to the learned Counsel, the show cause-cum-demand notice issued was barred by lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants, the licensing authorities could enforce the bond within a period of three years, but that period of three years also expired in July/August, 1998, when calculated from July/August, 1995, within which the export obligation was to be discharged by the appellants, but they failed to do so. Even, as per the conditions appended to the advance licences issued to the appellants as well as in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pex Court in the above said case has no doubt observed that the show cause notice could be issued beyond a period of limitation of five years prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, but this view was taken as the bond executed by the parties imposed continuous obligation without fixing any period for complying with the conditions of the import. But in the instant case, as per the terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act. Therefore, the show cause-cum-demand notice must be held to be barred by limitation. That being so, the duty demand could not be confirmed against the appellants nor even the penalty could be imposed. The impugned order of the Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside on the ground of limitation. 8. In view of the discussion made above, the appeals of the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
