2025 (8) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stated, fact of the case goes to show that appellant had exported goods namely Hot Rolled Non-Alloy Steel coils and Cold Rolled Close Annealed Non Alloy Wide Coils between 10.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 vide 143 numbers of shipping bills. There was an amendment made on 10.05.2008 by notification No. 66/2008- CUS that had effectively changed the rate of duty to 15% & 10% respectively for those two items which were earlier chargeable to NIL duty. As 138 shipping bills were passed for shipment on 09.05.2008, Ld. Commissioner had dropped the duty demand on those consignments and confirmed for five items @ 15% on three shipping bills totaling Rs. 8,87,600/- and @ 10% for Rs. 7,66,473/- for other two shipping bills alongwith interest u/s. 28 of the Cu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in view of Corrigendum issued belatedly for a demand raised for the normal period, the same is not sustainable in law as has been held through judicial precedent set by various judicial forums including the one passed by the Hon'ble Suprement Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Steel Authority of India, as reported in 2008 (225) ELT A-130 (SC) and by this Tribunal also in the case of Wipro Information Technology Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore, as reported in 1999(107) ELT (467) (Tri. Mad) as well as Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of M/s. Hope Cardamom Estate Ltd, Hooghly Vs. Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Bhubhneshwar-1 passed on dated 16.08.2022 holding that Corrigendum/ addendum /revised notice making mate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Customs Act, would determine the application of rate of duty on the goods meant for export. What is required to be determined here is, if notice sent originally on dated 03.10.2008, has been adjudicated or adjudication was initiated after Corrigendum to the said demand notice dated 03.10.2008 was issued on 11.04.2013, which was admittedly received by the appellant on 05.08.2013 as revealed from the para 4.3 of the order passed by the Commissioner? Needless to mention here that corrigendum has referred to the provision of law that empowers the proper officer to issue Show Cause and it has substantially changed the content of original notice in making various amendments to the description of goods, its quantity etc., apart from the fact tha....