2018 (12) TMI 960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by Singh Ahuja, AOR Mr. Awanish Sinha, Adv. Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR ORDER These appeals arise from the impugned orders dated 13.9.2005 and 12.5.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'CESTAT'), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. By the said orders, the CESTAT has allowed the appeals of the respondentsimporters on the ground that the demand of duty is barred by limitation. It also set aside the penalties imposed under sections 114A and 112(a) on the importers. In brief, the two respondents had used certain Special Import Licences (SILs) of gold bars and silver bars on payment of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.117/94 dated 27.4.1994. Apparently, the author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondents. Therefore, in these instant appeals, the sole question is whether the finding of the CESTAT that the demand was barred by limitation is sustainable or not. The provision for limitation on the relevant date reads as follows : "28. Notice for payment of duties not levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded.- [(1) When any duty has not been levied or has been shortlevied or erroneously refunded, the proper officer may, - (a) in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, within one year; (b) in any other case, within six months, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty w....