SEIKO BRUSHWARE (INDIA) Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the challenge has been made to the impugned order in original by the appellants vide which the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Customs) has confirmed the duty demand with interest against them, as detailed therein.

(2.) THE issue in this appeal relates to the denial of benefit of Notification No. 34/98 -Cus. dated 13.6.1998 to the appellants under which they imported into India bristles without payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs (hereinafter referred to as SAD). The ground on which the benefit of this notification has been denied to the appellants as put forth by the Revenue is that they had violated the condition contained therein in the form of declaration that the sale of the goods shall not be effected from the place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of the goods. This condition is said to had been accepted by the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods by furnishing declaration to that effect. They have violated this condition as they had sold the goods in Delhi and UP where sales -tax was exempted by virtue of exemption Notification dated 13.10.96 of the Sales -tax Department, Delhi and the relevant Notification of U.P. State Department. This very ground has been reiterated by the learned SDR before us during the course of arguments.

(3.) ANOTHER contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the adjudicating authority has traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice by confirming the demand under Notifications No. 57/98 -Cus. and 22/99 -CX - - the violation of which was never alleged in the show cause notice. Only, violation of Notification 34/98 dated 13.6.98 had been alleged which even stood rescinded by Notification No. 58/98 dated 1.8.98.