9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Orkay) imported Polyester Chips declaring them to be of Yugoslavian origin and claiming concessional rate of duty. The goods were allowed provisional clearance at the concessional rate of duty. Subsequent investigation showed that the goods were of Italian origin and were in fact loaded at a Port in Italy. Show cause notice dated 24-10-1986 was, therefore, issued seeking recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,06,53,744/- and seeking imposition of penalties upon M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd., their Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors as well as on M/s. Shipping Corporation of India and M/s. H. Saleix & Co. M/s. H. Saleix & Co. was the indenting agent and the Shipping Corporation of India was the carrier of the goods. Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outset was asked whether any permission had been obtained by the Revenue to pursue the appeal filed against the Shipping Corporation of India. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Empowered Committee dated 11-8-1997 as recorded by the Cabinet Secretary were placed before us and we are satisfied that the requisite clearance had been obtained to pursue the appeal. We have also seen the application for condonation of delay in filing of the supplementary appeals where the initial appeal filed was a joint appeal. We have condoned the delay in filing of the supplementary appeal. 4. The counsels for the Shipping Corporation of India were present. The other respondents were not represented in spite of sufficient notice. 5. We have heard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Ltd. [2000 (123) E.L.T. 909]. All these judgments were passed taking into account the different view held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [1989 (39) E.L.T. 51 (Del.)]. In fact these judgments had been cited before the Bombay High Court in the first cited case. 8. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Serai Kella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)] in paragraphs 17 and 18 very clearly laid down that where the assessments are provisional, the show cause notice invoking the extended period could not issue. 9. In the present batch of cases, we find that the issue of show cause notice itself was not warranted. Therefore, the question of non levy of penalty by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
