2019 (3) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003. They had procured granite blocks indigenously and a few consignments had been imported as well. 2.1 Proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the allegation that they had used duty-free imported raw materials in the manufacture of finished goods, namely, granite slabs. Hence, the benefit of Sl. No. 3A of Notification No. 23/2003 which precludes usage of such imported raw material, has not been complied with. 2.2 The appellants were therefore served with a Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.2012 inter alia proposing denial of the duty-free benefit of Sl. No. 3A of Notification No. 23/2003, demand of duty liability along with cesses totalling Rs. 52,56,189/- with interest thereon for the period fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri. P. Thiruvenkadam, Deputy Manager of the appellant, dated 19.03.2013 affirming that all the imported granites were used only in the manufacture of finished goods which were imported or transferred other EOUs (iv) The proceedings are also predominantly hit by limitation. Ld. Advocate drew our attention to paragraph 19 of the impugned Order, wherein the adjudicating authority has made a reference to the proceedings which had been initiated against the appellant for an earlier period i.e., from March 2004 to November 2008 and which culminated in adjudication order No. 67/2011-12 dated 30.03.2012. The adjudicating authority had therefore held that the proposal to impose penalty under Section 11AC for a subsequent period is not sustainable.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent opposes the appeal. Ld. AR also made a number of submissions which are summarized as under: (i) Nowhere in the reply to the Show Cause Notice had the appellant given any proof that the imported granite blocks had not been cleared to the DTA. Even in their letter dated 16.08.2012, the appellant had not given any such proof. (ii) Further, vide their letter dated 07.09.2012, the appellant had requested for waiver of personal hearing and requested to pass orders based on the written reply filed by them. (iii) The affidavit referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant does not have any supporting evidence and has been only submitted as an afterthought. (iv) With regard to the plea for limitation, Ld. AR reiterates paragraph 1....