TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Whether the Tribunal was correct in not deciding the questions of liability to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty for which the notice was also issued under Section 124(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, apart from the demand of duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) Whether or not the question of Show Cause Notice was being barred by time under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was irrelevant in as much as the assessment were provisional and therefore the question of limitations under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise. (vi) Whether the Hon'ble CEGAT was correct in applying the judgment in the matter of M/s. Purlux Electric Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, reported in 2001 138 (E.L.T.) 786 Tribunal, Mumbai to the facts at the case. 2. Briefly stated, the Commissioner of Customs by Order dated 31st January, 2001 has confirmed the Demand of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 68,08,501/- and Rs. 16,08,194/- of Low Ash Metallurgical Coke "in terms of proviso of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed of equal amounts under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wledge or was under reasonable belief that M/s. Glamour Barter Pvt. Ltd. were not transferees of the Advance licence. In this backdrop, the Tribunal relied upon its earlier decisions in the case of Purulax Electric (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2001 (138) E.L.T. 786 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Scientific Pharmacy v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai [2001 (135) E.L.T. 1085] and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs Mumbai v. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and others - Order No. C-I/3676-3714/01-WZB/dt. 22-11-2001 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.)] where the same advance licence along with other advance licences were involved in which the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Purulax Electric's case (supra). In the circumstances, the Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the transferee for misrepresentation made by the transferor of the advance licence for import of goods in terms of the Notification No. 203/92. It has also held that in view of the settled position, proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted against the respondent Company. On the above reasoning, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JJJ.) filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta against CEGAT Order No. A-79/98, dated 4-2-1998 and reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 818 (Tribunal) Goodluck Industries v. C.C.E., Calcutta. To support this position, he has placed reliance on (Vol. 120) 2000 E.L.T. A66 where the order passed by the Supreme Court summarily dismissing the appeals being without merit, is reproduced. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that on the settled principle of doctrine of merger, the view expressed by the Tribunal on the issue in question in Goodluck Industries' case stands concluded and it is not open for this Court to examine the questions as formulated in the present application. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2587 in the case of Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another, and A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1623 in the case of V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax to support the plea of doctrine of merger. He further submits that there is another good reason why no interference is warranted in the present Reference Application. According to him, the view expressed by the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equent decisions has attained finality. Reliance is also placed on another decision reported in 1998 (XC2) -GJX-2957 - TRIB - Commissioner of Customs, Bombay v. Jai Bhawani Concast Ltd. where similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in that decision, that the importer cannot be required to prove eligibility for duty free import of permitted goods again once the goods have been imported after endorsement of the transferability of the advance licence by the proper authority and in that event the revenue is debarred from making any inquiry at the stage of import or transferability of the licence. In paragraph 5 of this decision it has been observed that once the proper authority makes endorsement of transfer-ability of the licence, the importer cannot be required to prove once again the eligibility for duty free import of the imported goods. For taking this view, reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on its earlier decision in Nitco Marble & Granite Pvt. Ltd. & anr. v. CC - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 193 (T) = 1996 (63) ECR 111 (T) Para 4). Both these decisions have been allowed to attain finality by the Revenue. On the above basis, learned Advocate for the respondent contends that it is....