TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said switches, during the period from 16.06.2006 to 25.07.2012 claiming exemption from customs duty in terms of Sl.No.112 of Notification no.25/99-Cus dated 28.02.99. The condition for the said exemption is prescribed in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 1996. The officers of DRI conducted certain verifications in August, 2012 and held a view that the imported plates were not parts of switches and units were not entitled for the said exemption. A show cause notice dated 20.11.2012 was issued by the DRI demanding customs duty for the period from 14.11.2007 to 25.07.2012 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Proposal for confiscation of seized goods as well as impositio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o jurisdiction when the assessment of imported goods were made by the Customs Officers in the port of import. In fact, the demand made by the show cause notice issued by DRI was made answerable to the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Import and General IGI Airport, New Delhi. Based on the same set of allegations, the present show cause notice was issued and was adjudicated by a central excise officer, who is not competent to decide the exemption on imported goods, which is the role of the assessing officer at the port of import. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Molex India Ltd. - 2015 (317) ELT 250 (Karnataka). (C ) Exemption notification no.25/99-Cus is subject to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port. In fact, for the demand made by the show cause notice issued by the DRI, the same was made answerable to the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Import and General IGI, Airport, New Delhi. Based on the same set of allegation, the present show cause notice was issued and was adjudicated by the central excise officer. 3. Ld. AR for Revenue contested the appeal. He submitted that since the appellants violated the conditions of 1996 Rules, the jurisdictional officer is empowered to recover the duty upon denial of the concession. The appellants have executed a running bond in terms of the said rules and violation of the conditions are dealt with by invoking the Rule 8 of the said Rules. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise officers, in whose jurisdiction the appellant's unit is falling. We note that such dual jurisdiction of two officers having assessment powers and power to demand differential duty upon re-assessement, is legally unsustainable. 6. Admittedly, the violation of post-import conditions was subject matter of decision for the five years period in respect of this very same appellant in pursuance of the investigation carried out by the officers of DRI. The DRI issued show cause notice dated 20.11.2012 invoking provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, which deals with non-payment or short payment of customs duty and procedure to recover the same. The period covered by the said show cause notice was 14.11.2007 to 25.07.2012. The notice was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question is not whether or not the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise is a proper officer for customs work. The question is with reference to the imported items, which were assessed by the officers of customs in the port of entry. The subsequent variation of the said assessment has been carried out by the central excise officer having jurisdiction on the unit of the appellant. The Revenue defended such demand for the second time by the central excise officer on the ground that there is a violation of condition, post-importation and the bond executed by the appellant empowers the invocation of Rule 8 by the jurisdictional central excise officer to demand customs duty. It that be so, we fail to appreciate as to the need for demand under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the show cause notice dated 13.12.2013 was issued to cover the period of 16.06.2006 and 13.11.2007. This is a second proceedings in continuation of proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 20.12.2012 covering the period 14.11.2007 to 25.11.2015. We are unable to appreciate the reason for two proceedings on the same issue, one invoking section 28 for five year period and much later and another one invoking Rule 8 for earlier period which is even beyond five years. If the ratio of reasonable period for issue of demand under Rule 8 is considered, the present demand is beyond reasonable time as the same is issued almost six years' after the period of import. 11. Coming back to the issue of jurisdiction of the Dy. Commissioner of ....