9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals are made against the same order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai they are therefore being disposed of vide this single order. 2.We have heard Shri S.N. Kantawala for the appellants and Shri Virag Gupta for the Revenue. 3.M/s. Delux Carpet Co. were in possession of an Import-Export Pass Book bearing Sr. No. 0011261 issued on 27-2-1989. Four consignments of raw materials had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods lying in the docks in terms of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 111(d) of the said Act. Although the offending goods were imported during the period December, 1989 to July, 1990, in the show cause notice invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, the proviso thereof was not referred to which permitted notice to issue beyond the period of six months, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the following judgments. (1) Dawn Fireworks Factory & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1999 (31) RLT 104 (CEGAT)] (2) Jai Mata Plywood Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1999 (32) RLT 63 (CEGAT)] 7.The ratio of the two judgments is that where the first show cause notice did not invoke th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond show cause notice was not valid the orders of confirmation of demand made in the impugned order do not survive. 8.As regards the confiscation of the goods we find the proposals had been made only in the first cited show cause notice. The reason for confiscation as shown in Paragraph 7 of the said notice was that these goods would also have been sold by M/s. Delux Carpet Co. in the unlawful ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
