TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laiming benefits of Notification No. 11/97, dated 1-3-97? (b) Whether the importer is liable for penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act when duty was short levied due to mis-declaration made by him? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the Order-in-Original CAO No. 339/CAC/CC/K.M.T., dated 16-8-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai who has rightly held that the importer i.e. the Respondent firm has willfully mis-declared the goods under reference and wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97? Facts : 2.The officers of the Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement of Mr. Niren Champaklal Ajmera was thus recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962; wherein he inter alia; stated that their company was engaged in import of lining material; that they had cleared consignment of "Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabrics" as Insole material for leather footwear by availing the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. It was further stated that they did not manufacture any leather goods or shoes or any products made out of leather and that they sold the imported Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabrics to various parties who were traders only. It was admitted that under the said notification, there was no exemption benefit for "Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabrics". 6.Based on the aforesaid material, show cause notice was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be untenable, in that event, it would amount to mis-declaration of the goods which will enable the department to extend the period of limitation and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the demand is barred by limitation is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 12.Per contra, Mr. Nankani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no mis-declaration of the goods. He has pointed that the goods were declared as "Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabrics Sheets for making Insole". In his submission the goods imported were "Nylon Tricot Flock Fabrics" only. Mere mention of a wrong notification to claim exemption cannot be said to be a mis-declaration of goods under the Act. 13.Mr. Nankani, in support of the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Act. As the appellant had given full and correct particulars as regards the nature and size of the goods, it is difficult to believe that it had referred to the wrong exemption notification with any dishonest intention of evading proper payment of (Emphasis supplied)countervailing duty." 14.Mr. Nankani, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee further submits that the demand in the show cause notice pertains to the period from August, 1997 to May, 1998, whereas the reports referred to in Para 41 of the order-in-original were available with the appellant-Revenue in the month of November, 1996 as well as in the month of December, 1997. In spite of these reports, the goods were cleared on the basis of the bills of entry filed....