9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/75) to the continental shelf of India w.e.f. 11.2.2002, when it was published in Gazette of India. After the receipt of the notification, it was noticed that appellant has filed six transshipments permits for importing goods to Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone, which were cleared without payment of duty as neither revenue nor the appellants were aware of the aforesaid notification. Since duty was chargeable w.e.f. 11.2.2002 and no duty was charged so demand notice was issued to the appellant and on adjudication demand was confirmed by lower authorities. Aggrieved against the aforesaid demand, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The appellants asserted before the lower authorities that transshipments permit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ble Bombay High Court need to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. It was asserted by the counsel of the appellants that the formal show-cause notice was issued during the pendency of the Writ Petition. 3.2 As regards the third contention regarding admissibility of Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1.3.2002, the same was rejected. It was asserted that since the essentiality certificates were not issued in terms of Notification No. 17/2001 which was applicable at the time of clearance, but in terms of 21/2002 which was issued after the clearance, the benefit of exemption cannot be extended under any of these notifications 4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival contentions. 5.1 We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court did not bar issue of notice. This confirms the fact that the Court proceedings were not preventing Revenue from issuing show-cause notice in timely manner. The contention of the Revenue that the appellant during pendency of Writ Petition needs to be excluded, cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, we find that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. The impugned order cannot be sustained on this count. 5.2 It is observed that the appellants finally obtained essentiality certificate in respect of the goods cleared under the transshipment permit. However, benefit of exemption was denied despite these essentiality certificate on two grounds: - (i) That the said certificates were issued mentioning Notification No. 21/2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
