9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of imported goods/indigenous procured goods without payment of duty and imposition of penalties on both appellants. Analysis: 1. Confiscation and Penalties: The case involved the confiscation of imported goods and indigenous procured goods without duty payment, along with penalties imposed on both appellants. The appellant argued that they were entitled to transfer the goods to another 100% EOU as per Notification No. 140/91-Cus. and Circular No. 88/98-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of some goods and imposed fines. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were transferred without specific permission, contravening the exemption notification conditions. Consequently, duty payment was upheld, and confiscation of goods and penalties on both appellants were deemed appropriate, albeit with reduced amounts. 2. Permission for Goods Transfer: The appellant claimed they had the right to transfer goods under Notification No. 140/91-Cus. and Circular No. 88/98-Cus., arguing that the removal of goods between appellants was in compliance with legal provisions. However, the Respondent contended that specific approval from the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was necessary for such transfers, which was not obtained in this case. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the conditions outlined in the notification for lawful transfers. 3. Compliance with Notification Conditions: The Tribunal highlighted that the goods were transferred without the Assistant Commissioner's specific permission, a requirement under the exemption notification. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding permissions from the Software Technology Park and circulars providing operational flexibility, the Tribunal found the transfer to be in violation of the notification conditions. As a result, duty payment, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties on both appellants were deemed justified. 4. Reduction of Penalties: Considering the circumstances and the fact that the second appellant was also an STPI unit (EOU), the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on both appellants. The fines were reduced to Rs. 60,000 and penalties to Rs. 10,000 for each appellant, acknowledging the specific context of the case. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for duty payment, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties on both appellants due to the unauthorized transfer of goods without the required permission as per the exemption notification conditions. The fines and penalties were reduced, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
|
