TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we remit the matter to the Commissioner for issue of fresh order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. We offer no comments on merits of the case in respect of this consignment. All the appeals are disposed of by setting aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants and setting aside the demand relating to 8 consignments and remitting the issues relating to the seized consignment for fresh consideration in the above terms. - C/978-981/2005-Cus. - C/121-124/2009(PB), - Dated:- 2-3-2009 - S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) and P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri V.K. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Madan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - These appeals arise out of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny and Rs. 75,000/- on Commercial Manager of the appellant-company who are the other appellants. 5.1 Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that what has been imported by them is patent Glazed Glass; it has been imported from the manufacturer; they are used in the doors and windows for the purpose of glazing and they are covered by the term "Glazing Glass" mentioned in the DFRC licence. He also submits that all the required information has been correctly furnished by them before the Customs Authorities; and that the Examining Officers have clearly recorded that the imported glass items are Glazed Glass and the same are covered by DFRC licence produced by them. Under these circumstances, invocation of extended time limit for demanding dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is in the sheet form and the same cannot be used in the Leather Industry for the purpose of glazing in the glazing machine. The glass can be used for the purpose of glazing and are of special make and of special shape and some of the DFRC licences have clearly indicated that they fall under Heading No. 7020. What has been imported by them does not correspond to the DFRC licence. In letter as well as in spirit, the Notification is not applicable. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Exports Apparel Group Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 307 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that it is for the Customs Authorities to examine if the goods have been imported in terms of the licence, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents, we do not find any merit in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). So, we find that the demand of duty is barred by limitation. Therefore, the demand of duty and penalties are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside on limitation without going into the merit. All the appeals are allowed with consequential relief." 7.3 Therefore, the demand relating to 8 consignments are to be set aside as time barred. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider the issue as one involving interpretation of provisions of policy and the penalties on the appellants are not warranted. 8. As regards the consignment covered by the Bill of Entry No. 110490 dated 10-11-2003, which was subject matter of seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
