TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead, after a period of almost four months, the Show Cause Notice has been issued alleging short payment of duty. There is only error in the manner of payment of duty. For this reason, the appellant cannot be called upon to pay duty for the second time - Demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Application No.: C/Misc/40481/2018 for C/ROA/40280/2018, Appeal No.: C/00373/2008 - Final Order No. 42120/2018 - Dated:- 25-7-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri. M. Rajendran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench, The above miscellaneous application has been filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that neither the appellant nor the counsel had received any notice with regard to the hearing notice of the ROA application, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant deserves a chance to contest the case on merits. Hence, the ROA application is allowed and the appeal is restored to file. 5. On the very same day, both sides were heard on merits of the case also. 6. The Ld. Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the appellant had filed Bills of Entry dt. 13.07.2006, 17.07.2006 and 19.07.2006 for the clearance of import consignments utilizing licence under Notification No. 53/2003 dt. 01.04.2003. The appellant had to pay Special Additional Duty (SAD) at the rate of 4% and these were paid by debiting from the DFCE sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot be an allegation of short payment of duty. The appellant, having paid the duty by debiting in DFCE scrips, if asked to pay again, would be double payment of duty. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the duty demand. 8. The Ld. AR Shri. A. Cletus submitted that as per Notification 53/2003, only the basic Customs Duty and CVD could be debited from DFCE scrips. The 4% SAD cannot be debited in scrips and the appellant ought to have paid it in cash. Instead, the appellant has paid the duty by debiting in the scrips. The said payment is, in effect, non-payment of duty and therefore, the demand raised under Section 28(1) is legal and proper. The appellant is liable to pay the short paid duty. 9.1 Both sides have argued on merits with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
