TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The Commissioner has demanded duty of over Rs.26 crores from the appellants in respect of Stainless Steel Coils and Sheets imported by them under the DEEC Scheme during August 1997 to July 2000. He has also imposed equal amount of penalty on the party. It appears from the records that the appellants had obtained several quantity bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isited the above premises on 16-10-2002) that there was no manufacturing facility, that the raw materials imported duty-free had not been utilised in the manufacture of export goods and there was no evidence of receipt of any goods from job workers. On this basis, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee for recovery of duty on the imported materials and for imposition of penalty on the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce and that, as part of the investigations, the premises declared to be factory were visited by the Officers and some trappings of factory were found. This is apparent from the Mahazar drawn by the Officers. On the other hand, the findings recorded by DRI Officials, in respect of the same premises, were to the contrary. They did not find any machinery, except a few polishing machines in the premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace of the allegations raised in the Customs Notice, some of the allegations raised in the DRI Notice would apparently be amenable to challenge. That the DGFT certified the discharge of export obligation by the assessee is an important factor which would support the assessee s challenge against the demand of duty. The only question of fact to be decided upon in the present case is whether the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty. 3. Ld. Counsel has relied on certain decisions of this Tribunal in support of the challenge against the demand of duty. We have already observed that the primary question arising in the present case is one of fact, i.e., whether the assessee had a factory at the declared premises at the material time. The cited case law would not, in any way, advance the assessee s case on this ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
