9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed two items missing from the list that was originally registered with Project Import, which apparently were not imported by the appellant. 1.2 It appears that the Revenue sought clarification from the importer as to the discrepancy, but the importer appears to have replied that they had cleared Gas Automation Plant, Capsule Manufacturing Facility, Horizontal Precision Forging Machine under Project Contract and Ultrasonic tester and Direct Reading Spectrometer on merits and had deferred import of Portable X-Ray Analyzer and Mass Spectrometer. This, according to the Revenue, was clearly contrary to the Instructions of the Board dated 08.08.1987 and the Standing Order No. 35/87-MCH wherein it was clarified that the goods once registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before a higher forum, the same has attained finality. 2.1 It appears from the de novo adjudication order that during the course of personal hearing, the appellant, through its advocate, raised contentions as to the legality of Show Cause Notice as to the same being hit by limitation and also for the reason that the same was issued in the name of M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. which was not existing. Further, it was also contended that the adjudicating authority had passed the Order-in-Original on 19.12.1997 and the Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2004 issued against M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. was at least after ten long years which was also unsustainable in the eye of law. 2.2 The adjudicating authority, however, after hearing the appellant and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order dated 19.12.1994 was also issued after the finalization of Project Contract. * The successor company was unaware of both the order as well as the Show Cause Notice, which were sent to the erstwhile administrative office at Hyderabad of the non-existent M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. * The above Order-in-Original also returned undelivered. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Deputy Commissioner has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and we have also perused the orders of the lower authorities placed on record. 7. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the impugned Order-in-Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
