Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.), West ... vs M/S. Saha Enterprises on 1 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.Cus.Ap.250/09
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. Kol/Cus/CKP/134/2009 dated 25.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Customs, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s. Saha Enterprises
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Chakraborty, Authorized Representative (JDR) for the Appellant (s) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing/Decision :- 01.10.2009 Date of Pronouncement :- -01.10.2009 ORDER NO............................................................................
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand is time barred as there is no suppression on the part of the respondent with intent to evade payment of duty.
2. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondent deliberately declared the goods in question as betel nuts and wrongfully claimed the benefit of notification whereas actually the goods are areca nuts, which are not entitled for the benefit of notification as claimed.
3. I find that the goods were imported on 17.10.2002 and the show-cause notice was issued on 25.11.2005 alleging suppression of facts against the respondent. The goods were declared as betel nuts as per the description given in the invoices and other import documents. As per the Revenue, the betel nuts and areca nuts are the same hence wrongly availed the benefit of notification. As the respondent declared the goods as betel nuts as mentioned in the import documents. The mention of botanical name is not necessary. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand is held to be time bar. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) sd/ (S.S.KANG) VICE PRESIDENT sm 2 Appeal No.Cus.Ap.250/09