9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Duty demand on imported raw material, clearance of M.S. Drums without payment of duty, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962, value adoption for duty calculation, reduction of penalty amount, liability for interest payment.
Duty Demand on Imported Raw Material: The appeal concerned the duty demand of Rs. 6,60,761 on 4252 pieces of empty M.S. Drums of imported raw materials. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat confirmed the duty demand under Sec. 71 read with the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 28, along with interest at 24% per annum under Sec. 28AB and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contended that the goods in question were drums that had become scrap after being used for packing liquid rubber and synthetic rubber, hence cleared without payment of duty. However, the Tribunal found that the clearance of the goods was not supported by any documents, thus upholding the duty liability. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the clandestine clearance without payment of duty. Clearance of M.S. Drums Without Payment of Duty: The appellants argued that they cleared drums suitable for repeated use by paying duty as per Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981, while non-reusable packing material was cleared without duty payment under the same Notification. However, the Tribunal rejected this claim as the clearance lacked supporting documents, making the assertion that the cleared goods were scrap unsubstantiated. The absence of clearance documents also led to the rejection of the claim regarding the dates of clearance, preventing the establishment of the exact period for duty demand. Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act, 1962: Although the Tribunal upheld the finding of clandestine clearance, it reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The reduction was granted despite the warranted penalty due to the upheld finding of clandestine clearance. Value Adoption for Duty Calculation: The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the correct value for duty calculation should be Rs. 110 per drum, as opposed to the Commissioner's adoption of Rs. 300 per drum. Consequently, the duty demand was directed to be recomputed based on the corrected value of Rs. 110 per drum. Reduction of Penalty Amount: In light of the finding of clandestine clearance, the penalty imposed on the appellants was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 by the Tribunal, considering the specific circumstances of the case. Liability for Interest Payment: The Tribunal set aside the liability to pay interest as the period of clearance ended on 13-9-96, predating the introduction of Sec. 28AB, which mandated interest payment, on 28-9-1996. Consequently, the direction to pay interest was deemed inapplicable. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal, with adjustments made to the duty demand, penalty amount, and the liability for interest payment based on the findings and submissions presented during the proceedings.
|
