9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of law : (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that extended period of limitation as per the proviso to Section 28(1) is applicable in the present case in demanding duty on imports made vide the 21 bills of entry (covered by Annexure-B to the SCN), imported during the period May, 2008 to July, 2009? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in imposing penalty on the Appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 ? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962?". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of opinion between the members deciding that appeal. The appeal was referred to a third member on the limited issue of classification and namely the difference of opinion. In the meanwhile, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal rendered an order on the issue of classification and based on which the Mumbai Bench concluded the matter in favour of the Revenue. The assessee has paid up the amount of duty and is not seeking any relief in relation to the same. That there was a difference of opinion would denote as to how an arguable case was raised and, therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 7. In the impugned order, barring noting the rival contentions, the Tribunal, according to Mr. Sridharan, has passed a cryptic orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962, according to the Tribunal, contains an admission and that is how the Tribunal terms the act as misdeclaration and suppression on the part of the importer, resulting in a duty evasion. These facts, according to the Tribunal, conclusively establish misdeclaration. 10. From this discussion, we find that there appears to be a confusion in the mind of the Tribunal as to whether what the appellant-assessee declared was a correct description of the goods or whether it was a misdeclaration and suppression as alleged. The facts, according to the Tribunal, establish misdeclaration, but save and except the statements of the four officials, we do not feel that the Tribunal has adverted to any other material based on which the assessee declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
