TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the original authority, it is seen that a notice was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 demanding duty to the tune of Rs.49,062/- for the reason that the exemption is only for duty that is in excess of 30% and not 20%. However, it is seen that amount of Rs.2,20,777/- has been confirmed by the original authority on the ground that the appellant has not produced end-use certificate. Indeed, the said finding is beyond the scope of the SCN. On perusal of Notification No.89/1994, it is found that there is no such condition attached to the goods imported under List-C. The argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel alleging that the original authority has confirmed a higher amount on grounds which are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... know to about the demand notice and the order confirming the duty only when the Revenue Recovery Unit initiated steps for recovery of the amount. The appellant then obtained a copy of the order passed by the original authority and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed the appeal by holding that the order of confirmation is set aside, however, the demand notice is upheld. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel Mr. N. Viswanathan appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.89/94-Cus. dated 01.03.1994 as per Sl.No.39 of List-C. The subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the show cause notice and confirmed a higher duty of Rs.2,20,777/- alleging that the appellant has not produced the certificate from Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, in whose jurisdiction their factory manufacturing the said goods is situated, to the effect that the said goods have been used in the manufacture of finished goods. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no condition imposed in the notification. Therefore, the demand confirmed by the original authority alleging that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition is erroneous. 4. Ld. Counsel adverted to paras 9 10 of the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that there is no evidence produced by the department to show that show cause notice as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. Counsel alleging that the original authority has confirmed a higher amount on grounds which are not alleged in the SCN and has thus traversed beyond the SCN is not without substance. There is also no evidence available from the impugned order or from the records that SCN and the OIO have been served on the appellant. The said plea has been put forward by the appellant from the very beginning of the litigation. For these reasons, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that demand cannot sustain which requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 8. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (pronounced in the open court on 06.04.2023) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
