TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be exported. Duty-free clearance was obtained by the appellants upon execution of a bond in terms of the Notification. Apparently, under the bond, the assessing authority was required to furnish proof of export, which was not furnished. Eventually, by a letter dated 8-6-98, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group I II) requested the appellants to pay bond value of Rs. 17,50,835/- immediately, failing which, it was warned, action would be initiated in terms of Section 142 of the Customs Act. A reminder dated 7-9-98 was also sent by the Assistant Commissioner. Apparently, this demand was not honoured by the party. Ultimately, on 12-10-98, the proper officer of Customs issued to the appellants a NOTICE IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 (1) O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants plea of time-bar on the premise that a demand of duty raised on the ground of breach of conditions of exemption Notification cannot be resisted on such a ground. According to the appellants, where any amount of duty is demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the plea of time-bar is available to the noticee. In this case, the bill of entry was filed on 31-12-96 and the show-cause notice was issued on 12-10-98 without invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, according to the appellants, the demand of duty is time-barred. Ld. Counsel for the appellants and ld. SDR for the respondent have reiterated the respective contentions. Ld. SDR has particularly referred to the annexure to the notice in her endeavour to sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebuttal. This did not happen in the present case. As we have already indicated, the belated notice was issued without invoking the extended period of limitation. Nothing contained in the annexure to the notice was a ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. On these facts, we have to hold that the appellants have a strong case on the ground of limitation against the demand of duty raised in the impugned order. 3. After a perusal of the original records shown to us by ld. SDR, we find that a detention notice was issued by the Department to the appellants under Section 142 of the Customs Act on 17-2-2000 i.e. after the Order-in-Original was passed in this case. In a subsequent notice dated 4-3-2000 issued by the Department, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
