TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate tribunal is correct in holding that the demands are clearly barred by limitation when the import of goods took place on 8.5.98 and the show cause notice demanding duty was issued on 23.1.03 within five years as per the proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act? 2) Whether the appellate tribunal is correct in allowing the appeal when the respondent had imported materials duty free under DEEC scheme which have not been used in the manufacture of resultant products covered by the advance licenses?" 2. The respondent is a manufacturer of helical springs. During the period 1996-2000, they obtained 24 advance licences and imported raw material, viz., spring steel wires, to be used in the manufacture of resultant products, which have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. - Vs Collector of Customs, Bombay (1997 (94) ELT 449 (SC)), which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in several cases including Sha Harakchand Dharmaji Vs CC, Madras (1996 (88) ELT 764 (T)) and Jay Engineering Works Ltd. - Vs CC (2003 (162) ELT 680 (T)). 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the matter, on the issue of benefit of notifications, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Oblum Electrical case (supra) and came to hold that the actual user condition cannot be imposed in these notifications in the light of the decision in Oblum Electrical's case (supra) and various other decisions of the Tribunal referred to in the order, which have attained finality. 5. On the question of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned senior counsel, however, submitted that if the first question of law is answered in favour of the respondent/importer, concurring with the view of the Tribunal, then there is no necessity to go into the second question of law. 7. Heard Mr. Chandrasekaran, learned senior Central Government standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Arvind P.Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. This Court, on a careful consideration of the rival submissions, is in agreement with the contention raised by Mr.Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel on the scope of the appeal, more so, with regard to certain findings of the original authority as recorded by the Tribunal. 9. Para 35 of the order of the original authority, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y detail, no declaration would have been required at all since SION is in public domain. Unfortunately, both the DGFT & Customs Deptt., have accepted incomplete technical specifications and details and also have failed to compare the export product with the raw material that has been imported. Hence, the investigation by DRI & the case. 10. In the light of this finding, the Tribunal, on a perusal of the records, has held that the licences and documents were furnished at the time of export and also at the time of import of the raw materials for replenishment and such details were furnished to the licencing authority, which includes, DEEC passbook and other export documents. The said documents have been scrutinized by the DGFT and customs au....