9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Duty-free clearance under DEEC Scheme, non-compliance with export obligation, imposition of penalties, confiscation of goods, demand of interest on duty amount.
Summary: The case involved an appeal by Jayakrishna Aluminium Ltd. against an order passed due to non-compliance with the export obligation under the DEEC Scheme. The company had imported aluminium ingots duty-free but failed to export the goods produced from them, instead selling them in the domestic market. The Commissioner imposed penalties, confiscated the goods, and demanded duty payment along with interest. The appellants contended that their claim of exporting over 14 tonnes was not considered, penalties on the company and its Managing Director were unjustified, confiscation was unwarranted, and interest demand was baseless due to a subsequent provision. The evidence supported the order according to the Departmental Representative. Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments regarding penalties, confiscation, and interest. The duty payment was upheld, but the claim of exporting over 14 tonnes needed verification as it was not addressed in the original order. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the duty amount considering the export claim. The penalties on the Managing Director were set aside, while the penalty on the company was maintained due to being a small percentage of the duty demand. Ultimately, the appeal by Jayaprakash Aluminium Ltd. was partly allowed concerning redemption fine and interest, with a fresh order required on the duty amount. The Managing Director's appeal succeeded in overturning the penalty imposed on him. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
