TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have claimed exemption under Notification 40/2006-Cus - Here, the importers have suppressed the fact of availing the CENVAT credit and have claimed the undue benefit in respect of additional duty of customs. Considering information given by the applicants regarding duty liability in respect of bills of entry filed after the amendment each of the parties were directed to make pre-deposit of the sum of the amounts shown in Cols. 4 & 5 against each of the respective applicant and report compliance - Upon compliance with the orders both the parties are at liberty to mention the matter for further disposal of the appeal itself - Stay denied. - C/41010 to 41025/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2013 - Pradip Kumar Das and Mathew John, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in cases where DFIAS was transferred to third parties. The applicants were of the view that the condition implied that they should not have availed Cenvat credit of Countervailing duty imported under DFIAS, whereas the Revenue was of the view that no Cenvat credit on any materials used in export goods should have been availed. 3. This notification was amended by Notification No.17/2009-Customs, dated 19.02.2009 to have the following conditions: (iiia) that in respect of imports made after the discharge of export obligation in full, if facility under rule 18 (rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of resultant product) or sub-rule (2) of rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or CENVAT Credit under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), these applicants have filed their appeals along with request for waiver of pre-deposit. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that even in a situation where the amendment was made through a retrospective legislation, demand has to be made as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act and within the time-limit prescribed therein. The retrospective amendment itself shows that there was considerable confusion in understanding the scope of the original notification. In such a situation it cannot be alleged that the applicants were suppressing any information or misrepresenting any facts with intent to evade duties of customs. Therefore, he submits that the demands confirmed invoking the extended period is not sustainabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Amount in Rs.) 1 Samarth 15,25,952 15,25,952 2 -do- 3,62,822 3,62,822 3 BSRK 74,623 74,623 4 Sybex 1,67,462 1,67,462 5 Taha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,05,077 Total 1,12,14,148 29,43,768 21,37,694 1,62,95,610 5. Considering the above information furnished by the applicants, we direct each of the parties at S. Nos.3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 15 in the table above to make pre-deposit of the sum of the amounts shown in Cols. 4 5 against each of the respective applicant (For clarity PP Product to make deposit of Rs.2475959), within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 30 th October, 2013. Upon compliance with the orders both the parties are at liberty to mention the matter for further disposal of the appeal itself. Subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
