2000 (10) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ese components @ 50% (basic customs duty) plus 20% (auxiliary duty) at the time of clearance after availing exemption under Notification No. 232/83-Cus. dated 18-8-83. The total duty so paid was Rs. 28,47,969.10. Department alleged that the said items were not covered under the Table annexed to the Notification ibid and, therefore, the benefit of the Notification was not available to the goods. Therefore, the Department, by show-cause notice dated 28-7-89, proposed to recover an amount of Rs. 35,61,860.20 towards differential duty covered by alleged short payment and a further amount of Rs. 1,75,509.22 towards interest thereon, totalling to Rs. 37,37,369.42, from the appellants by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant date." 4. Learned Consultant has contended that, in the absence of specific allegation of facts constituting collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts against the appellants in the show-cause notice, the Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation for recovery of alleged dues of customs duty, which are more than two years old. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CCE v. HMM Limited [1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)] and Kaur and Singh v. CCE [1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)]. Learned Consultant also reiterated the appellants submissions on merits as contained in the memorandum of appeal. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 5. Learned....