2016 (2) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For the Appellant : Shri S Sarkar, CA, CR For the Respondent : Shri M Singh, Asst., Commr, (AR) ORDER Per H K Thakur These stay applications & appeals have filed by appellant against OIO No. KOL/CUS/Commr/06/2013 dt 25/2/13 & OIO No. KOL/CUS Commr/08 2013 dt 06/03/13 under which demands of Rs. 58,19,0271/- & Rs. 46,16,231/- respectively have been confirmed, alongwith interest. As the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. That Noft No. 71/2009/Cus dt 19/6/09 made applicable retrospectively from 23/3/2009 is beyond 200 days of its issue and is not proper. That these additional grounds could not be argued before the adjudicating authority as both the orders-in-original were decided exparte. 2.1 That on merits also appellant has a strong case as the percentage of alloying elements need not be more the 1% which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is not more than 1% in order to claim the imported goods as alloyed Aluminum. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. As the issue involved in these proceedings lies in a narrow/compass, therefore, after allowing stay applications appeals themselves are taken up for disposal. It is the case of the appellant that a notification issued under Sec-8 (2) of the Customs tariff Act, 1975 is op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le proper reply. Another extension was sought by the appellant up to 20/11/12 and after completion of that time appellant was asked to file reply. A further deferment upto 31/12/12 was also allowed by the Revenue. A personal hearing was granted for 24/01/2013 by the adjudicating authority which was attended by the appellant but a written reply was submitted to be filed by 28/1/13. It is further ob....