Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 358 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (2) TMI 358 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 227 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Demand of duty - Transshipment of goods without charging duty - period of limitation - Held that:- appellants were clearing the goods on the basis of transshipment permits and when the definition of Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone were changed. As a result the duty liability arose in respect of the clearance made to area within the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone. The show-cause notice in respe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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. - The fact that the goods cleared under transshipment permit are required for the intended purpose is clear from the facts t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the Respondent : Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: RAJU The appellants, M/s Frontier Aban Drilling (I) Ltd., are engaged in supply of material of offshore drilling rigs. Government of India issued a Standing Order No. 189-CE dated 7.2.2002 extending the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51/75) 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ants asserted before the lower authorities that transshipments permit, in respect of duty as has been demanded, were submitted before 11.2.2002, when the changes in the scope of Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone were made. They also prayed before the lower authorities that the notice issued to them is time barred as the show-cause notice was issued after a period of 6 months from the date of clearance of goods. Third contention raised before the lower authorities was that they have o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r authorities rejected the first contention on the grounds that while the date mentioned on the transshipment permit was 11.2.2002 but the same were issued on later date. 3.1 The second contention regarding limitation was rejected on the ground that the appellant had filed a Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2002 with the Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging the demand notices. Pending the Petition in Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was asserted by the lower authorities, no show-cause notice coul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 find that the appellants were clearing the goods on the basis of transshipment permits and when the definition of Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone were changed. As a result .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as filed by appellants in Hon Bombay High Court on 25.11.2002. The Writ Petition was essentially filed making Union of India, through the Director General of Hydro Carbons as a prime respondent, along with ONGC, the Commissioner of Customs, and Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai as respondents. The petition was essentially directed at the ONGC to issue recommendatory letter to Director General of Hydro Carbon for issue of Essentiality Certificate under aforesaid notifications. It is seen that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version