TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not exist is factually wrong. The next contention put forward by department is that Section 11A does not speak the relevant date to be the date of acquiring knowledge by the department, and that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in computing the period of limitation and holding that the demand is time barred. On bare perusal of sub section (3) of Section 11A, it is seen that the argument of the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der claiming benefit of Notification No. 54/2003-Cus dated 01.04.2003. b) During the disputed period, the Respondent is entitled for benefit of Notification No. 92/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004 by way of which the Respondent is entitled to exemption of custom duties by way of debiting the amount to the duty scrip. It is the case of respondent that, while filing the Bill of Entry the computerized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore the extended period of limitation is invokable. The said Show Cause Notice after adjudication confirmed the proposals. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the order on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, department has filed the present appeal. 2. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR Sh. Arun kumar submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods. That the final assessment for the Bill of Entries concluded on 11.07.2006 and 14.07.2016. Therefore the Show Cause Notice issued on 05.06.2008 was rightly held to be time barred by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced the grounds alleged by appellant in the impugned order. It is seen that appellants have raised the plea of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
