2007 (1) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods described as "Lace (fabric parts)". They sought classification under CH 6217.90. Revenue felt later that the imported goods are classifiable under CH 58.04. Therefore, Show Cause Notices were issued under Section 28 demanding differential duties. The lower authority confirmed the demand. The party approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who passed the impugned orders. In the impugned orders, in respect of the first demand, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the party's contention that the demand is time barred, as the Show Cause Notice was not served on the party but on the CHA. In respect of the second demand, the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a finding that the classification of the impugned goods under CH 58.04 is in order and, ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led by the importers themselves without the assistance of CHA. This is recorded in the OIO. In such circumstances, it is all the more necessary that Show Cause Notice should have been served on the party within time. The notice issued through CHA is not a proper service. The Bill of Entry was assessed on 24-10-2002 and the Department issued Show Cause Notice a day before the expiry of limitation and the Show Cause Notice, though addressed to the party, was served on the CHA. The Apex Court, in the case of CC v. Trivandrum Rubber Works - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9(S.C.), held that the notice for short levy is required to be served on the person chargeable with duty. Notice addressed to importer but served on the clearing agent on the last day befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....py of demand letter. The acknowledgement has been made as "For Imperial Exports". Therefore, the demand was issued to the importers within the time limit and the demand is not time barred. The subsequent claim of non receipt of demand letter in time is an after thought only to get away from the duty liability, (ii)    The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the reclassification of the goods and has upheld the demand in the other case in the Order in Appeal. Therefore, the demand is sustainable'on merits of the case (iii)   Further, on the point of issuing demand without challenging the assessment order, the learned JDR pointed out that in quite a few cases, the Tribunal has granted refund to the parties even ....