TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03/1992 - reliance placed in the case of The show-cause notice is vague and non-maintainable - appeal allowed. - Appeal No. C/916/07 - A/85049/2018 - Dated:- 10-1-2018 - Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member And Shri C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Shri Lakshmi Menon, Advocate for appellant Shri Manoj Kumar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the appellants have rightly availed the benefit under Notification No. 203/92-Cus against presenting Value Based Import Licence (VABAL) transferred in their favour. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants, a S.S.I. Unit, were engaged in manufacturing of Hand Made Woolen Carpets. The carpets, manufactured by appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed to be confiscated for alleged violation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty was proposed under 112(a) of the Act. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated on contest vide order-in-original dated 20.02.2006 by the Jt. Commissioner of Customs confirming the demand of ₹ 3,33,699/- along with interest and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal observing that there is nothing to deny the fact that the said notification 203/1992-Cus Serial No. (v-a) stipulates that the benefits can be availed on the fulfillment of condition at v(a) which is allowed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal has held in favour of the import in the case of C.J. Shah and Co. v. CC - 2017 (347) ELT 168 (Tri). 6. Learned A.R. has relied on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the contentions, I find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC v. Auto Ignition Ltd., - 2008 (226) ELT 14 (SC) has held as follows:- 9. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that in the absence of any such proof, demand raised by issuing the show cause notices cannot be sustained. Moreover, the onus to prove that the assessee had availed of the Modvat credit was on the Revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the Tribunal and consequently do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
