TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... challenged the impugned order-in-original dated 9-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 28,17,072/- with penalty of Rs. 28 lakhs on appellant No. 1, M/s. Asian Exports, and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant No. 2, the Director of the firm, Shri Rajeev Khandelwal. 2. The appellants are engaged in the export of the goods. They im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts, however, contested the correctness of the show cause notice and maintained that the duty demand was time-barred. The Commissioner through the impugned order confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on the appellants, as detailed above. 3. The learned Counsel has solely contested the validity of the impugned order on the ground of limitation. According to the learned Counsel, the show cause-cum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was to be discharged by the appellants, the licensing authorities could enforce the bond within a period of three years, but that period of three years also expired in July/August, 1998, when calculated from July/August, 1995, within which the export obligation was to be discharged by the appellants, but they failed to do so. Even, as per the conditions appended to the advance licences issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be accepted to be correct. The Apex Court in the above said case has no doubt observed that the show cause notice could be issued beyond a period of limitation of five years prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, but this view was taken as the bond executed by the parties imposed continuous obligation without fixing any period for complying with the conditions of the import. But in th....