TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y initial Show Cause Notice or issued date as the relevant date and rest of addendums/corrigendum letter as precise details clearly pointing out the relevant data/limits/scopes of this case proceedings which have already stood commenced - Show Cause Notice dated 18-7-2001 was issued within extended time of 5 years and as such Show Cause Notice can not be treated as time barred - F. Nos. 373/82, 83 & 84/DBK/ 2009-R - 131-133/2011-Cus - Dated:- 4-7-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri K. Parameshwaran and K.V Nagaraj, Advocates, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. [Order]. These revision applications have been filed by the applicants as mentioned in column no. 2 of the table against order-in-appeal No. 168/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore in the matter arising out of order-in-original Nos. Sl. No. 29/2008 ADC, dated 3-4-2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. 2. Brief and common facts of these cases are that vide common order-in-original Sl. No. 29/2008 ADC dated 3-4-2008, the demands as shown below, have been confirmed against each of the applicants : S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials as well as finished goods from GTI (100% EOU) and claimed undue benefit of duty drawback on goods manufactured by GTI (100% EOU); demanded duty amounting to Rs. 53,618/- from GDPML exported through BACC and the goods received from GTI (100% EOU) were not sent back after job work but exported in their name and claimed duty drawback, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 55,000/- under Section 114 for having received and sent raw materials as well as finished goods from GTI (100% EOU) and claimed undue benefit of duty drawback on goods manufactured by GTI (100% EOU), imposed a penalty of Rs. 85,000/- each on M/s. Alka International and Leela Scottish Lace Ltd. under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for carrying, removing, harbouring goods which they knew or had reason to believe that they are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order-in-original, the above four applicants, of the same group have filed respective appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who after due consideration of the facts as mentioned therein rejected same. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant in addition to presenting detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disputed in any matter whatsoever thereto. 4.4 The very basis adopted for correlating the DCs with export invoice/shipping bills would be established further as totally misconceived and erroneous thereto. Such a correlation made is only based on assumptions or presumptions without any material to substantiate the same thereto. 4.5 No show cause notice till date has been issued pertaining to the exports made from other ports viz. Bombay and Madras till date and only show cause notice covering the exports made from Bangalore ACC read with the said addendum dated 2-5-2002 had been issued thereto. 4.6 It cannot be alleged that there was any suppression or wilful misdeclaration so as to justify the invoking of the extended period thereto. In fact, none of the alleged basis/reasons given either in the show cause notice or in the said orders would prima facie justify the invoking of the extended period and thus for this reason alone the entire demand made would deserve to be held as clearly and categorically hit by limitation/time bar thereto. The entire demand of drawback has been confirmed to be recovered particularly against the applicant herein essentially under Section 75A(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Bangalore ACC but even other ports viz. Madras and Bombay, still it is the factual position that no show cause notice till date has been issued by any other authority pertaining to drawback claimed in respect of exports made through other ports viz. Madras and Bombay thereto. 4.10 that readymade garments were not covered under Central excise control during the relevant period and thus the non-obtaining of any prior permission should be considered only as a procedural lapse, which is neither intentional nor mala fide thereto. 4.11 The said written submissions dated 30-10-2002, as under : v. It is respectfully submitted that the raw materials like fabrics which are sent to the DTA units are returned after processing as unfurnished/incomplete readymade garments and not as raw materials as such. It is a mere presumption/assumption on the part of the investigating officials who visited to the incumbent units that the goods are not returned back to GTI. It is not based on facts on record. GTI being an EOU, maintain proper records which includes issue of input for export goods manufactured out of non-duty paid goods, which are subjected to periodical checks by the deputed sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 as common hearing for all the above three Revision Applications but nobody appeared on behalf of respondent department. The applications advocate in oral as well as written submissions have mainly stressed and explained the facts/grounds of the Revision Applications as have already been made. 6. Government has carefully gone through the records of the case including all the submissions/citations etc. as made at the time of personal hearing and otherwise till this stage of the case. 7. Government on perusal of all the case records notes that this matter of obtaining said inadmissible drawback illegally can be broadly divided into two legal aspects i.e. (i) As to whether the entire case proceeding were hit by any time limitation clause; and (ii) Whether the charges/contravention as alleged in the impugned Show Cause Notices are liable to be correctly/legally sustainable on merits as per the orders of the lower authorities. 8. Government first takes up the Time bar aspect of this case proceedings wherein it is an admitted fact that for the involved DBK amounts claimed and sanctioned in 1996-1997 the original Show Cause Notice was issued on 18-7-2001. Further it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the individual Units, and physical stage of the goods/units but the applicant herein submits and desires as under :- (i) The resumed challans were only for their internal accounting purposes and should be treated as redundant . (ii) The free movements of their (100% EOU) goods as well as goods of other DTA Units inward/outward of bonded premises does not require any prior permission of any kind. (iii) Any non-execution of bond/back guarantee and further such (above contravening) movements were due to ignorance and should be treated as condonable procedural lapses only. (iv) Since they (100% EOU) have no export obligation pending and their Unit was under full physical control of the department so they (the applicants) should not be held as responsible for contraventions, if any. So they are neither required to return the impugned Drawback amounts nor are liable to confiscation/penalties. Further pleas of categories of RMGs i.e. Cotton based/Nylon based viz-a-viz available facility of only one type individual Unit was made in defence along with defence of explained/interpreted meaning of applicability of Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as per text bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
