9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verages", under Tariff Heading 2208 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods which fell under Tariff Heading 2208 were freely importable and no licence was required for importation of the same. 3. After the amendment of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with effect from 1st January, 1996, alcoholic preparations (other than those based on Odoriferous substance), used in the manufacture of beverages, with an alcoholic strength exceeding 0.5% was transferred from Heading 22.08 to Heading 21.06. 4. Between March, 1997 and October, 2000, consignments of the said goods imported by the petitioners, covered by 54 bills of entry, were provisionally assessed under Heading 21.06 as per the order of the Commissioner of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he procedures laid down therein must be complied with. For construction of a penal provision, it is trite, the golden rule of the literal interpretation should be applied. The difficulty which may be faced by the Revenue is of no consequence. The power under Section 11-A of the Act can be invoked only when a duty has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid. Such a proceeding can be initiated within six months from the relevant date which in terms of sub-section (3)(ii)(b) of Section 11-A of the Act (which is applicable in the instant case) in a case where duty of excise is provisionally assessed under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, is the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. A proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercises by the assessing officer to complete the assessment proceedings as contemplated under the Rules. On a plain reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, we have no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal was correct in its finding that the impugned show-cause notices were illegal." 10. In Ujagar Prints II v. Union of India reported in 1989 (3) SCC 488 = 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) relied upon in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Mumbai & Ors. v. ITC Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court held that the word "levied" was a wide and generic expression and the question of non-levy or short levy could arise only when there was levy in accordance with law. There could be no levy where there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid goods. 15. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners had the option to challenge the show cause notice in this Court or alternatively to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners opted to reply to the show cause notice. 16. Counsel for the respondents argued that having replied to the show cause notice, the petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Port), being the adjudicating authority. It was not open to the petitioners to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The petitioners could not now question the show cause notice by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 17. The submission on behalf of the respondents is difficult to accept. The fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
