9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue against the Order-in-Original No. 2/2001, dated 24-1-2002, by which the Commissioner has dropped the demand of duty being time-barred. 2. We heard Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned S.D.R and Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate. The learned S.D.R. submitted that the respondents, M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd., a 100% EOU, manufacture cotton yarn, cotton fabrics and garments thereof; that the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 8/97-C.E.; that the question regarding availability of Notification No. 8/97 went up to the Tribunal, which held, vide Final Order Nos. 47-48/2001-D, dated 30-1-2001 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 657 (Tribunal)], that wax, etc., are raw materials and cannot be termed as consumables and the benefit of Notification No. 8/97 would not be available; that however, the matter was remanded to the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nistrative control over the unit in the context of proper implementation of warehousing provisions of the Customs Act, 1962; that the officer posted there had no control over the manufacturing process and use of various raw materials; that the clearance of final product in DTA for home consumption is under Self-Removal Procedure; that in the said Self-Removal Procedure, the assessment of the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have used imported raw materials in the manufacture of finished products. On the other hand, the learned Advocate submitted that the receipt of raw materials and removal of finished goods were always in the knowledge of the Department as a regular Central Excise officer was posted in the respondent's factory. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is admitted fact that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact of use of the imported raw material, the Department cannot claim that they came to know this only by conducting investigation. It cannot, therefore, be held that the respondents had suppressed the fact of using the imported raw material from the Department. In view of this, the extended period of limitation is not invocable. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
