2019 (4) TMI 1184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rationalized how the demand is barred by limitation of time. He further argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not verify the facts and data while negating the observation of the Lower Authority. Since the records show that the Respondent exporter has all along paid the cess on export of Mica and Mica products from the year 2010 itself at Kolkata Seaport. They have also paid cess at various other Customs Houses in India. Thus, the invoking of extended period of 5 years in the Show Cause Notice is in accordance with Section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 and contended that the impugned order should be set aside and the Order of the Adjudicating Authoring restored. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondentassessee reite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....find that the Committee of Commissioners vide Order No. KOL/CUS(Airport)/Review/08/2018 dated 06/08/2018 have observed as under:- "From the above discussions it is observed that the disputed amount in the instant case is Rs. 1,60,705/- which is well within the threshold limit set by the Board under National Litigation Policy (NLP). However, attention is invited to the instructions issued by the Board on filing of departmental appeals vide F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 20.10.2010 and subsequently amended through instructions issued from even nos. dated 17.08.2011 and then dated 17.12.2015. From a reading of these instructions it transpires inter alia that no departmental appeals shall be filed before the Ld. CESTAT if the total revenu....