2005 (11) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications for importers of non-edible crude grade palm oil.
2. Imposition of penalty and fine on importers.
3. Request for waiver of penalty and fine.
4. Appeal for out of turn hearing.
5. Interim order for exporting goods without paying differential duty, fine, and penalty.
6. Entitlement to re-export goods without payment of fine and penalty.
7. Requirement of pre-deposit of fine and penalty.
8. Execution of bond for re-exporting goods.

Analysis:

1. The appellants imported non-edible crude grade palm oil and cleared a portion provisionally under bond by paying duty. A penalty and fine were imposed on them. The issue involved stay applications for the importers regarding re-export of the goods.

2. The impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and a fine of Rs. 9 lakhs on one importer, and a penalty of Rs. 1.25 lakh on another, along with granting re-export options. The imposition of penalty and fine was a key issue in the judgment.

3. The appellants sought a waiver of the penalty and fine, arguing that there was no misdeclaration as all details had been furnished to the department. The request for the waiver of penalty and fine was a significant aspect of the case.

4. Additionally, the appellants requested an out of turn hearing for their appeal, emphasizing the urgency of the matter. The appeal for out of turn hearing was considered in the judgment.

5. There was a plea for an interim order to export the goods without paying the differential duty, fine, and penalty, citing a Tribunal ruling. The issue of seeking an interim order for exporting goods without immediate payment was addressed in the judgment.

6. The judgment clarified that the appellants were entitled to seek re-export of the goods without payment of fine and penalty at that stage. The entitlement to re-export goods without paying fine and penalty was a crucial decision in the judgment.

7. The requirement of pre-deposit of fine and penalty for re-export was discussed, and it was determined that the appellants did not need to pre-deposit the fine and penalty for the goods provisionally cleared. The issue of pre-deposit of fine and penalty was resolved in favor of the appellants.

8. Finally, the judgment specified that the appellants needed to execute a bond to the Commissioner for the duty, fine, and penalty liable to be paid on the provisionally released goods for re-export. The execution of the bond for re-exporting goods was a significant aspect outlined in the judgment.