Page 50 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

A204 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

The Tripura High Court in its impugned order had held that the decision
of the Investment Appraisal Committee disallowing certain investments made
from escrow account in identified sectors as stipulated under Condition B of No-
tification No. 8/2004-C.E., dated 21-1-2004 as amended by Notification No.
28/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, with prior approval of Jurisdictional Commissioner
of Central Excise introduced as officer to monitor functioning of Pan Masa-
la/Gutkha manufacturers in North-Eastern States, was not sustainable particu-
larly when the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee and the
report of Monitoring Committee primarily relied upon by it was also not sup-
plied to him. The demand notices issued denying area based exemption under
the said notification based on such decision of the Investment Appraisal Com-
mittee was not sustainable.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR,
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Mr. A.K. Srivastava and
Mr. Kartik Anand, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Saraf, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S.S. Shroff, AOR,
Ms. Samarika Singh, Ms. Umrah Alvi and
Mr. Ravinder Nijhawan, Advocates, for the
Respondent.
(1) Demand whether time-barred when show cause notice
issued after six months of examination of imported
goods but duty paid within prescribed limitation pe-
riod admitting misdeclaration?

(2) Demand — Extended period of limitation whether in-
vocable when imported goods misdeclared with in-
tent to avail exemption?
(3) Demand — Importer whether barred from raising limi-
tation issue when he himself admitted misdeclaration
and paid differential duty?
(4) Penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962,
whether imposable when invocation of extended pe-
riod of limitation upheld?
The Bombay High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S.
Sanklecha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nitin Jamdar on 23-8-2019 admitted the Cus-
toms Appeal No. 28 of 2019 filed by Tata Motors Limited against the CESTAT
Final Order No. A/87779/2018-WZB, dated 26-10-2018 (Tata Motors Ltd. v. Com-
missioner). While admitting the appeal, the Bombay High Court passed the fol-
lowing order :
“P.C. : Heard.
2. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the im-
pugned order of the Tribunal confirming the demand of dif-
ferential duty amount to ` 1,45,74,924/-, by applying the pro-
viso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is invalid
and/or perverse in law?
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  50