TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 01.03.2000 for the goods covered under B.E.No.3176142 and BE No.3177255, both dated 11.04.2011, should not be denied and the duty quantified demanded with proposals for confiscation of the goods seized as well as proposals for imposition of penalties. It was alleged therein that Shri. Murugan K.S. had abetted the said acts of the importer by facilitating exports of Chinese origin polyester knitted fabrics through his firm M/s. Green Port Shipping Agencies and by undertaking customs clearance of the imported goods through his CHA firm M/s. M. K. Shipping Agencies Pvt ltd, thereby rendering himself and both the firms liable for penalties and the said appellants were required to show cause as to why penalties should not be imposed on them for the offences alleged against them. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original TUT-CUSTM-PRV-COM-20/2023 dated 13.03.2023 confirmed the proposals in the SCN demanding duty, penalties etc on M/s. Gaunir Impex Pvt Ltd as well as penalties on the appellants herein under provisions of Section 112 as specified therein. Aggrieved, the appellants herein, having preferred these appeals are before this Tribunal. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Shri Niren Ajmera for which samples were drawn and sent to Textile Committee, Chennai, the outcome of which is as per the Table at para-3 of the SCN. The Authority has referred that in respect of test reports by 2 different authorities retesting was done through Central Revenue Control Lab (CRCL), New Delhi whose report dt. 26.07.2012 is placed at Annexure III. Apart from this, we find references to 13 Shipping Bills/13 Bills of Entry, statements of Murugan, P. Prabakar Soundararaj, Manager of All India Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Tuticorin and that of Shri Niren Ajmera and finally it was proposed (i) to reclassify the Fabric in question as RITC 54079200 in respect of one Bill of Entry No. 3176142 (ii) deny exemption under Notification No.26/2000 (supra) for the Bills of Entry Nos.3176142, 3177255 and raise consequential demand under Section 28 (4) ibid. (iii) as to why fabrics seized (Bills of Entry No.3176142 and 3177255) should not be confiscated under Section 111 (o) ibid apart from penalty under Section 112 (a) (ii) ibid and under Section 114A ibid. The Director, Shri Niren Champaklal Ajmera was put on notice as to why penalty sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 23.08.2012 and 11.01.2013, although for different Bills of Entry, there is no deniable of the fact that all the samples were tested and the Chemical Examiner's reports are available in respect of the goods covered in all these Bills of Entry. In this regard, the observation in the DN dt.03.05.2011 [supra] at paragraph 2.8 is most relevant wherein the Revenue through the Authority has relied on Circular No.23/2004 [supra] which clarifies that the test reports would be valid for a period of 6 months. 9. The cumulative reading of all the SCNs as duly acknowledged are at para 43.1 of the OIO clearly indicates that the Revenue was aware of the alleged modus operandi, the test reports were also used in all the SCNs, which clearly forbids the Revenue from claiming unearthing of new fact for issuance of a SCN by invoking the larger period of limitation. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are relied upon by the appellant : (1) P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs CCE 2003 (153) ELT 14 (SC) (2) ECE industries Vs CCE New Delhi 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC) (3) Hyderabad Polymers Vs CCE Hyder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me could be examined from a different angle; we have already extracted in the earlier paragraphs of this order that vide Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2012, the Commissioner of Customs had ordered the extension of period of limitation by six months as proposed in the SCN and accordingly, in strict compliance thereto, Department did issue another SCN under Section 28 and 124 of the Customs Act. There is no dispute that the said notice is issued just before the expiry of six months. The time limit extended by the Commissioner having been honoured, the only course available was to adjudicate at least this second SCN, but however, the issuance of another show cause notice after the extended six months period, by violating the Commissioner's OIO has been questioned since this SCN is apparently issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. The arguments of the appellant is that the extension provided by the Order-in-Original [supra] was for issuing SCN and nothing else and once the SCN having been issued, the Revenue could not have assumed jurisdiction once again, that too after the expiry of permitted six months by treating directions in the said OIO as an endless permission, wh....