2011 (7) TMI 921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for Respondent : Shri B.L. Soni, SDR Per S.S. Kang : Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant filed these Appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No. 28-29/CUS/ALLD/2010 dated 19.4.2010. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s L.G.W. Ltd. made import of Chinese silk yarn by availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. dated 8.4.2005. The condition of the Notification is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y ordered absolute confiscation of 12 bales of raw silk yarn and also imposed penalties of Rs.1.00 lakh each on both the Appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed Appeals filed by the Appellants. 3. The Appellant M/s L.G.W. Ltd. raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), Varanasi on the ground that the goods were imported and assessed a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce the Appellant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, now the Appellant cannot raise this issue at this stage. 4. We find that issue of jurisdiction is a legal issue and can be raised at the Appellate stage also. The issue of jurisdiction is a valid issue in view of the decisions relied upon by the Appellants. We find that the import is made in 2007 and th....