AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (6) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are also engaged in the export of their products under Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme as provided under Chapter VII of Export & Import Policy 1992-97. They have obtained a number of Advance Licences issued under the scheme both quantity based and value based, to import raw materials namely Hot Roll (HR) Coils and Zinc required for manufacture of the export products. The departmental officers searched the factory and office premises of the appellants as well as M/s. Steel Tubes of India Ltd. on 10-2-1995, on collection of intelligence report that materials imported under DEEC Scheme were being diverted and misused. From the premises of Steel Tubes of India, a quantity of HR Coils was seized. On scrutiny of the document and futher investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoking the longer period for such a demand thereunder on the ground of suppression of facts by the appellants. The seized H.R. Coils were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 fixing a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 30,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on the appellants. 2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Counsel appeared for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore has acted beyond jurisdiction in adjudicating the case. The goods have been cleared on filing of Bill of Entry under DEEC Scheme through Bombay Customs. It was contended that in respect of import under DEEC Scheme, the jurisdiction for taking action under Section 111(o) lies with the Customs a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice and thereby the appellants did not have any opportunity of defence. Even otherwise it was submitted that the Collector has not compared the material with the export product and the test report relating to that product. The ld. Counsel also argued on limitation contending that there was no suppression of any facts by the appellants. The material used in the show cause notice against them are all contained in the documents submitted by them before the Bombay Customs House including the purchase order placed by identor on foreign supplier. Therefore, it was urged that the Customs did have knowledge about the consignment and no suppression can be alleged on the part of the appellants. The whole of the demand is barred by limitation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argued that the appellants had given declaration in the Bill of Entry itself about the truth of its contents and it is apparent from evidence in this case that they had knowingly made the declaration regarding the import of material vis-a-vis, the export of material without regard to the truth. Therefore, the Commissioner was justified invoking the larger period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 4. The submissions made by both the sides have been considered. We are of the view that the preliminary point raised by the appellant has a lot of force. A perusal of the decisions of the Tribunal cited on the question of jurisdiction would show that the law laid down by the Tribunal is that the jurisdiction to take action in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, the Tribunal observed that the import of the goods took place at Madras. Their clearance duty-free in terms of Customs notification was also granted and legal undertaking to comply with the condition in the notification was to be executed before the Customs Authorities. On these facts the Tribunal observed that there is no manner of doubt that the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs or the Collector of Customs, Madras was the proper authority who was to return a finding of non-compliance with the conditions laid down in the notification and to demand customs duty in respect of quantity of goods in respect of which the conditions was not complied with. The Tribunal further observed that the fact that utilisation of imported material was not i....