2006 (3) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Duty (SAD) on DTA clearances by invoking provisions of Section 3(A) of the Customs Tariff 1975 on sales from an EOU into DTA as import. (b) The demands of duty in four show cause notices & on account of Additional Duty of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act 1978 were held to be unsustainable & dropped by the Commissioner. (c) As regards the levy of  Special Additional duty the Ld. Commissioner has held - As regards levy of Special Additional Duty, I observe that none of the contentions of the noticee hold water. The distinction between import and deemed import has not been elaborated anywhere in the scheme of central excise or customs law and procedure. More so. the impact of such a distinction on the levy of special addit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-6-97 upto 31-3-2003 and thereafter 52/2003-Cus. dated 31-3-03 for imports of EOU as claimed by the assessee. The denial of consideration of benefit of Sr. No. 4 to table to Notification No. 22/99 arrived by the Commissioner is not upheld for the reason that there was no grounds arrived to deny the claim. The Commissioner is finding that the decision of Morarjee Brembana, 2003 (154) E.L.T. 500 wherein it has been held that SAD is not applicable to sales by EOU to DTA is not applicable for the reasons as arrived in the order impugned, as extracted supra. The non levy of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 would not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that SAD has to be charged. (b) The assessee is admittedly not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Inasmuch as, Commissioner has confirmed the duties only on the short ground that they were not contested, whereas we find it otherwise, we set aside that portion of the order of the Commissioner confirming Customs duty and CVD and remand the matter to him for de novo adjudication after considering the reply filed by the appellant. 3. We also agree with the appellants contention that the entire demand of duty raised vide Show Cause Notice dated 21-4-03 and part of duties covered under other Show Cause Notices is barred by limitation inasmuch as entire clearances were effected under the cover of invoices and no mala fides can be attributed to them with an intention to evade payment of duty. The issue is of bona fide interpretation of th....