2014 (8) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Seconds & waste (chindies) of Terry Towels cleared into DTA without payment of duty by the respondent M/s Texport Textiles LTd., the lower appellate authority has reduced the penalty imposed under Section 11AC to 25% of the duty demand confirmed on the ground that the appellant had paid the duty levied prior to the issue of show-cause notice. This reduction in the penalty granted by the lower appellate authority is incorrect in law, inasmuch as the said benefit can be extended only if the duty, interest and 25% of the penalty is paid to the Exchequer within 30 days from the date of receipt of the adjudication order and in the present case, inasmuch as the appellant has not fulfilled this condition, reduction in penalty granted by the lower ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation of extended period of time was not warranted. Therefore, the appellate authority is right in dropping the demand. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 4.1 As regards the duty demand of Rs. 3,67,479.28 on the Trade Samples Rejects/seconds & waste (chindies) of Terry Towels etc., both the adjudicating and the appellate authorities have upheld the confirmation of duty demand invoking the extended period of time. The respondent as also not disputed this duty liability inasmuch as they failed to discharge the duty liability at the time of clearance of the goods on the ground of ignorance. Ignorance of law is not an excuse and therefore, the confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 3,63,478.29 invoking the extended period....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....risdictional Commissioner of Customs on the recommendations of the Development Commissioner. In the facts of the case before us, there is no dispute that no approval from the Commissioner of Customs was obtained nor any recommendations were given by the Development Commissioner. Therefore, the respondent was clearly ineligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/95-CE. However, the question is whether the duty demand is barred by time. The lower appellate authority has held that since the goods were moved under Bond under Chapter X procedure, the documentation under which the goods moved was very much within the knowledge of the department. The appellant had also filed D-3 intimation for the procurement of the goods which was required to b....