- (1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 130(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") by the revenue against the order dated 28-6-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal) proposing the following substantial questions of law :- "(a) Whether CESTAT is justified in ignoring the fact that party availed the benefit of exemption notification No. 34/88-Cus. by misrepresentation/misstating goods, involving suppression of the facts, coupled with the findings of the Commissioner that imported goods were not eligible for benefit of Notfn. Ibid, as such can respondent be absolved of the liability as per the provisions of the Section 28 of the Customs Act? (b) Whether after taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances as stated above, said order of the Commissioner of Customs is legal and proper insofar as he has not confiscated the goods, imported vide Bill of Entry No. 82 dated 26-5-94 even after holding these liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) and that these were not eligible for benefit under exemption Notification No. 34/88-Cus., but still not levied fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, respectively? (c) Whether CESTAT order, upholding the Commissioner's order, which suffered from inherent contradictions stated above, is justified and legal? (d) Whether CESTAT is justified in not treating the act of the misdeclaration of description of the imported goods as wilful misstatement of facts under the ambit of proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, for invoking extended period of limitation?"
(2.) The assessee was issued two show cause notices alleging that he had wrongly claimed the benefit of notification No. 34/88 in respect of BE No. 243 dated 19-9-1994. After considering the reply, the demand of duty was confirmed against which the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
(3.) Another show cause notice dated 22-8-1995 had also been issued to the assessee alleging misdeclaration of description of goods in respect of BE No. 82 dated 26-5-1994. After considering the reply, the Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 25-11-1997 issued on 18-1-1998 dropped the proceedings, against which revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.;