TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ousing Bill of Entry dated 20-12-97 at Mumbai Customs for the purpose of warehousing the goods without payment duty under the EOU Scheme. The goods were accordingly warehoused during the period 8-1-1998 to 18-1-1998. Under an agreement entered into between the appellants and M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd., Indore under Section 59(3) of the Customs Act, the goods were cleared without payment of duty, to M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. under two ex-bond Bills of Entry dated 8-1-1998 and 20-1-1998 filed by the latter claiming exemption under Notification No. 80/95-Cus., dated 31-3-95 under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme on the basis of Advance Licences and Advance Release Orders issued from the Directorate of Foreign Trade. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontravened the said Section 68 and Condition No. 5(b). A reply was given to the corrigendum also. After considering the party's reply and personally hearing them, the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act together with interest on duty under Section 28AB of the Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on them under Section 112(a) of the Act as per order dated 25-9-2002. The present appeal is against this order of the Commissioner. 2.Heard both the sides. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the corrigendum issued on 9-2-2001 had completely changed the complexion of the case made out in the original show cause notice dated 1-7-98 and, therefore, it required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE, Ahmedabad [2002 (148) E.L.T. 809] wherein a refund claim filed by the assessee was rejected on the ground that he had not challenged the earlier assessment of the relevant Bill of Entry. Reliance was also placed on the Tribunal's decision in Voltas Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (149) E.L.T. 1047] wherein assessment of RT-12 return was held to be appealable. 3.The DR submitted that the goods had been imported by the EOU by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus. but the exemption under the Notification was not available as the goods were cleared by the appellants to the DTA unit without payment of duty contrary to the provisions of Para 9.18 of the EXIM Policy. The appropriate duty of customs was recoverable in respect of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared by the party to M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. (DTA unit) without payment of duty under ex-bond Bills of Entry dated 8-1-98 and 20-1-98. It is not in dispute that the said Bills of Entry were filed by the DTA unit claiming duty-free clearance under the DEEC Scheme on the basis of Advance Licences and Advance Release Orders issued by the Directorate of Foreign Trade and that the clearance of the goods was allowed on duty-free assessment of the Bills of Entry. The appellants have argued that, when they were not able to utilise the imported material, they were permitted by the EXIM Policy to dispose of the goods in the DTA and accordingly they had disposed of the goods by clearing them to the DTA unit. According to the appellants, in so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise to Customs. On a perusal of the appellants' reply to the show cause notice dated 1-7-98, we observe that their reply contained enough material to make the department realise the mistake of having invoked the Central Excise Act and Rules. It should have occurred to the Department at that stage that demand of duty should have been raised under the Customs Act. The Central Excise Act and the Customs Act are independent, self-contained statutes. The nature of duty leviable and the basis of a demand thereof under the Central Excise Act are different from those under the Customs Act. Hence a demand of certain duty raised under one Act cannot be transformed into demand of a different duty under the other Act through a corrigendum to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this demand. Obviously, the demand of customs duty raised on 9-2-2001 in respect of the raw material imported by the appellants during 1997-98 is barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 6.In the case of Studds Ltd. (supra) cited by the Counsel, a show cause notice was issued on 2-2-1990 demanding Central Excise duty by denying SSI exemption to the assessee. A corrigendum dated 14-9-90 changed the Tariff classification of the goods and accordingly enhanced the quantum of demand. It was held that the corrigendum was, in effect, a new show cause notice as a new ground for demanding duty was raised. The demand was accordingly held to be time-barred with reference to the date of the 'corrigendum'. The instant case stands on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
