TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations were given by the Development Commissioner. Therefore, the respondent was clearly ineligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/95-CE. The appellant had also filed D-3 intimation for the procurement of the goods which was required to be verified by the department. Therefore, at the time of verification of the goods obtained duty free, the Bond officer should have examined whether the goods have been moved in accordance with law, which the Bond Officer has failed to do. Therefore, for the failure of the Bond Officer, who verified the receipt of the goods, the department cannot invoke extended period of time. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate authority that the department had knowledge of the entire transactions and ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate authority is not sustainable in law. The Revenue is also aggrieved by the dropping of demand of ₹ 14,32,141.28 by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the extended period of time could not have been invoked, inasmuch as the clearances were effected under the certificate issued by the department and receipt of the goods in the warehouse was notified to the department and, therefore, the department cannot say that the respondent withheld any information regarding non-approval of the procurement of Furnace Oil by the jurisdictional Commissioner on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner. Accordingly, it is urged that the duty demand is set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) needs to be restored and the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended period of time is sustainable in law. After coming to the said conclusion, the appellate authority has granted abatement on the penalty imposed on the ground that the respondent had deposited this duty demand before the issue of show-cause notice. For granting abatement of mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11AC not only duty but also interest thereon and 25% of the penalty imposed should be remitted to the exchequer within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. In the present case, this condition has not been complied with by the respondent. Therefore, the grant of abatement in the penalty by the lower appellate authority is clearly unsustainable in law. Therefore, order in this regard has to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was required to be verified by the department. Therefore, at the time of verification of the goods obtained duty free, the Bond officer should have examined whether the goods have been moved in accordance with law, which the Bond Officer has failed to do. Therefore, for the failure of the Bond Officer, who verified the receipt of the goods, the department cannot invoke extended period of time. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate authority that the department had knowledge of the entire transactions and yet they failed to issue show-cause notice within the normal period of time and consequently the demand become time barred cannot be faulted. 4.3 Though the learned AR for the Revenue points out that the lower has not droppe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
