TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing two questions : "[i] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, despite the clear cut suppression of facts on the part of the assessee in not mentioning the specific serial number and List Number applicable in the exemption Notification No. 21/2002-CUS., the CESTAT is right in holding that there is no suppression and allowing the appeal on grounds of limitation? [ii] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT is right in ignoring the undertaking dated 5-6-2003 given by the assessee at the time of clearance of their goods that "in case of any duty liable to be paid by them as an 100% EOU the same will be paid by them?" 2. The respondent-assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on were clearly made out in the facts of the present case. It was submitted that in the bill No. 1/2003-04, the assessee mentioned the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 without mentioning the serial number of the said notification under which it was claiming exemption. It has also not mentioned the details of the additional duty/special additional duty applicable in the case of the Bill of Entry. As per serial No. 250 of the said notification, customs duty @ 5% plus additional duty was required to be paid and as per serial No. 251 of the said notification customs duty @ 5% was only required to be paid. Thus, by not mentioning the serial number of the notification, the assessee knowingly created a situation to mislead the concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id by it, cannot now be permitted to renege from such undertaking and that the exchequer should not be deprived of the revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly pointed out the amount of duty which the assessee was liable to pay in accordance with law. 5. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, on merits, the assessee has not disputed its liability to pay the duty before the Tribunal. The only contention advanced on behalf of the assessee was that the demand was barred by limitation inasmuch as the bills of entry which were filed on 2nd June, 2003 were duly assessed by the proper officer. It was submitted that, the allegation in the show cause notice about the suppression of correct serial numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003-04, calculating the Basic Customs Duty @ 5% amounting to Rs. 6,90,875/- on the capital goods availing exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS, dated 1-3-2002. The said bill of entry came to be assessed by the proper officer who at the relevant point of time, did not raise any objection or point out to the assessee that it was liable to pay countervailing duty or special additional duty. According to the adjudicating authority, the assessee had not mentioned the serial number and list number applicable for the removal of capital goods with deliberate intention to mislead the assessing officer regarding the rate of duty applicable. The aforesaid view of the Adjudicating Authority is fallacious, for the reason that in case the assess....