TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant date. The proviso clause appended to section 28 ibid provides that in case of non levy, short levy of duty, etc., on account of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer, the period of 6 months should be read as 5 years . In the instant case, it is not the case of Revenue that non-payment/ short-payment of duty by the appellant was owing to the reason of misstatement, suppression of facts, etc., in as much as the initial Show Cause Notices issued by the department clearly indicated the description of the goods imported by the appellant, classification of such goods under the CTH, and claim of exemption provided for such goods. Thus, under the circumstances of the case, the subsequent Show Cause Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 on the ground that the show cause proceedings initiated vide notice dated 15/07/2008 is barred by limitation of time in as much as the period of importation of subject goods, i.e. High Allumina Balls was during period July, 2007; whereas, the notice was issued on 15/07/2008, which is clearly barred by limitation of time, having being issued beyond the period of prescribed time limit of 6 months. With regard to Appeal no. C/45/2010, the appellant has contented that the Adjudication Order had travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice and as such, the demand confirmed against the appellant cannot be sustained. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported High Allumina Balls, classifying the same under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Show Cause Notice should only be confined to normal period provided under section 28 ibid. Thus, he submits that since the department has issued the Show Cause Notice beyond the normal period prescribed under the statute, the same is barred by limitation of time. To support the stand that Show Cause Proceedings are not maintainable on the ground of limitation, he has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Prince Khadi Woolen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society Vs CCE 1996 (88) ELT 637 (S.C). 4.1 With regard to the other appeal i.e. C/45/2010, Ld. Advocate submits that since the adjudication order was passed, classifying the subject goods under entirely a new entry in the CTH, which was not proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, the statute mandates that in case of non-payment or short payment of the duty amount, the department should issue Show Cause Notice within 6 months from the relevant date. The proviso clause appended to section 28 ibid provides that in case of non levy, short levy of duty, etc., on account of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer, the period of 6 months should be read as 5 years . In the instant case, it is not the case of Revenue that non-payment/ short-payment of duty by the appellant was owing to the reason of misstatement, suppression of facts, etc., in as much as the initial Show Cause Notices issued by the department clearly indicated the description of the goods imported by the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
