1981 (1) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation has been filed by M/s. Bharat Processors, Bombay. 2. This is a case in which the Deputy Collector penalised the petitioners by holding that they had misdeclared certain fabrics as Fents and cleared them without payment of duty. This order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. 3. The petitioners have contended that the goods in question we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to them at the original stage they were not asked to show cause why duty should not be demanded. They have stated that it is the department's case that the petitioners cleared ten cases of fabrics each case containing 200 pieces of uniform length of 1.1. L.M. and that out of these 10 cases, 3 cases were delivered to M/s. Near East Trading Company, Bombay and the remaining seven cases were despa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of duty on the other fabrics. They have stated that under these circumstances, duty on the 8 cases should not be demanded from them. Govt. observe that leviability to duty and demanded for duty are two different matters. Govt. have already held in para 3 above as also in the case of M/s. Near East Trading Company on their revision application vide Order in F. No. 195/B/5/61/76-CX. V that the goo....