TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods from the warehouse. On 6-11-1995 goods were ordered to be cleared by the concerned authority. However, the goods could not be actually removed on cleared from the warehouse on that date. Actual delivery of the goods was taken by the appellants on 16-11-1995. In the meantime, by a Notification No. 159/95, anti-dumping duty was imposed on 14-11-1995. Revenue obviously was not aware about imposition of duty because the goods were cleared without payment of any anti-dumping duty on 16-11-1995. Later on a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue to the appellants herein asking them to show cause as to why duty of Rs. 2,55,418 be not recovered as anti-dumping duty had been imposed on the goods prior to the date of actual removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been followed recently by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Triveni Chemicals Ltd., reported in 1999 (33) RLT 800. On a query from the Bench he fairly concedes that this plea was not taken before the lower authorities but he submits that from the facts of this case, it is apparent that neither the department nor the importer was aware of the issue of the said Notification imposing anti-dumping duty on 14-11-1995. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned JDR, Shri Ravindra Babu submits that the new plea now taken by the learned advocate for the appellants should not be allowed at this stage because it is a plea of fact. He also submits that ignorance of law on the part of the appellants is not an excuse when Section 15(1)(b) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that rate of duty should be as on the date on which the goods were ordered to be cleared. On the basis of Apex Court s judgment in the case of Union of India v. Apar Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1999 (33) RLT 787, the rate of duty on which the goods were actually removed from the warehouse would be applicable for the purpose of determining the quantum of duty. Accordingly, the rate of duty as available on 16-11-1995 would be applicable to the present goods. Subsequent question raised by the learned advocate that Notification 159/95, dated 14-11-1995 was brought to the notice of the public later on i.e. after 16-11-1995 and not on 14-11-1995 as is actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
