LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners by way of this petition have approached this Court with following prayers:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention to the provisions of Sections 61, 65 and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the permission granted for carrying out the manufacturing activities within the in-bond area and contended that the demand notice, on the face of it, would indicate that the same was having any justification for calling upon the petitioners to show cause for the period which is mentioned thereunder. In fact, the Order-in-Original dated 18-2-2016 indicates that the period in question for which the demand is raised and duty is imposed spans from 1996 to 2012. Counsel submitted that in light of the provisions of Section 28 also, the same would be ex facie permissible under the law. Apart therefrom, the respondents' untenable contentions as could be seen from the observations in the Order-in-Original as well as in the affidavit in reply in Para-5.7 would indicate that when there is no dispute qua the goods being exempt, as could be seen from Pages 35 and 75 and when there is no dispute qua the goods being used in the manufacturing process itself loosing its identity, there was no question of raising the demand impugned.