TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be established on the basis of the show cause notice, that however does not entitle them to the relief of setting aside of the order against them on the ground of limitation - appeal allowed - Matter restored before the CESTAT. - CIVIL APPEAL NO.6136 OF 2008, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.726-727 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2018 - JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE, JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO And JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY For the Appellant : Mr. K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Mr. Udit Jain, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Roy, Adv. Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been short levied on the imported goods due to willful mis-declaration and suppression of facts and on the strength of forged documents. Therefore, respondent - M/s Zenith Ltd, appears liable to pay penalty under section 114A and the duty is recoverable from them in terms of section 28(1) read with the provision thereof along with the interest in terms of section 28AB of the Customs Act. A similar averment is also there in respect of other respondent viz., M/s Adani Exports Ltd.. The demands were confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs at Mumbai vide orders dated 23.2.2002, 18.3.2002 and 22.3.2002. Against the said orders, the respondentsimporters preferred the appeals to the CESTAT. The CESTAT agreed with the respondents on the point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re substituted. Relying on the proviso, Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that firstly, there is no allegation that there was any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importers or by the agent or employee of the importers. On the face of the show cause notice dated 20.4.1999, this is not correct submission made by Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent, since there is a clear allegation in paragraph 43 of the said show cause notice to that effect. Secondly, according to Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent, the said show cause notice did not specify who had made the willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The allegations as to who committed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
