Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (9) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NORTHERN PLASTIC LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE [ 1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] , we are of the view that even if the declaration made by the respondent-assessee with regard to the claim for exemption in payment of duty therein and that the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., the respondent did not commit any wrong. It cannot be said to be a case of misdeclaration. In that view of the matter, there is no wilful suppression of facts or wilful misdeclaration by the respondent-assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal was justified in taking a view that the demand was barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner of Customs was no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t March, 1997 inasmuch as goods incapable of being used as "Insole Sheets" in Leather Industry were being cleared at concessional rate of duty under the said notification after availing exemption benefit. Pursuant to the said intelligence report, the officers of DRI intercepted certain consignment of "Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabrics", imported at Mumbai Port, and drew samples and forwarded it to the Central Leather Research Institute, Adayar, Chennai for testing and soliciting their opinion. The said Institute vide its letter dated 30th December, 1997 opined that the Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabric material could not be used as Insole or Insole Sheet material in manufacture of shoes. 3.On another reference made by the DRI officers, a technical o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the same as "Sheets for making Insole" and declaring their (the said 16 bills of entry) assessable value at Rs. 1,61,53,247/-. On the basis of the declaration made by them, those 16 bills of entry were assessed to a concessional rate of duty extending the benefits of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1st March, 1997. 7.The above show cause notice was replied by the noticee. 8.The Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) upheld the charges levelled by the Department and confirmed the show cause notice vide his Order-in-Original dated 16th August, 2002. 9.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short), w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2 of the said judgment, which reads thus : As the goods imported by the appellant"22. were being used and intended to be used as Cinematographic Film, the appellant had described them as Cinematographic films covered by sub-heading 3702.20. No attempt was made by the customs authorities either before the Collector or before CEGAT to show that the goods imported by the appellant were ordinarily not used as Cinematographic Films or were not intended by the appellant for such a use. Moreover, looking to the Heading 3702 and its sub-heading, it does not appear that such goods were intended to be covered by sub-heading 3702.90. As regards the claim for exemption in payment of countervailing duty the appellant had stated that it was entitled to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding with respect to the show cause notice being barred by limitation in spite of specifically raising the question before it and, therefore, the appellate authority could not have dealt with this aspect of the matter. 16.Mr. Nankani further placed reliance on the Circular No. 74/98-Cus., dated 6th October, 1998 to contend that prior to the issuance of the circular the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai had considered the "Nylon Tricot Fabrics" to be covered under the heading Insole and Midsole. Which, ultimately, resulted in issuance of the circular in question so as to clarify that the exemption is not available under the said Notification No. 11/97-Cus. He, thus, submits that if prior to the issuance of this circular an exemption was allowe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates