TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich were not cleared through RMS system were passed through the officers. The officers could not point out that since the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification 85/2004, they cannot avail the benefit of Notification 20/2006 in view of para 3 of the later notification. - ingredients of Section 28 are not satisfied so as to invoke the extended period of limitation in the present case. In the result, the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is confirmed while the demand beyond the normal period is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL No. C/880/12-Mum - A/3254/2015-WZB/CB - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Paresh M. Joshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serial No.1 of the table annexed to Notification 20/2006-Cus. However, when the DRI officials pointed out that the benefit of the said notification is not available in view of paragraph 3 of the said notification, they had paid the duty for the normal period of limitation. They further submitted that they have never suppressed any fact or they have not given any misstatement or any other things so as to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. It was further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner has also not brought down any details which would justify the invocation of extended period of limitation. 3. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the order. He particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately 40% bills of entry were passed through the officers and the remaining were cleared under RMS system. We note that even the bills of entry which were not cleared through RMS system were passed through the officers. The officers could not point out that since the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification 85/2004, they cannot avail the benefit of Notification 20/2006 in view of para 3 of the later notification. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that the ingredients of Section 28 are satisfied so as to invoke the extended period of limitation in the present case. In the result, the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is confirmed while the demand beyond the normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
