9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Duty demand confirmation, penalty imposition under Section 114A of the Customs Act, relevance of detention memo, control of goods by Customs authorities, applicability of explanation to Section 114A, waiver of pre-deposit, interim stay of impugned order.
Analysis: The appeal challenges the Commissioner's order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 72,85,010/- for machines in Annexure 'A' and Rs. 30,12,355/- for machines in Annexure 'B', along with a penalty totaling Rs. 1,02,97,365/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that no duty deposit was necessary as the goods were under Customs control and that the penalty imposition was invalid due to an explanation in Section 114A inserted by the Finance Act, 2000. The appellant's counsel contended that the goods subject to duty demand were under Customs control based on a detention memo. However, the memo only referred to three compressors, one boiler, and two air-conditioners, not the specific machines listed in Annexures 'A' and 'B'. It was clarified that the detained items were different from those for which duty was confirmed, rendering the detention memo irrelevant to the case. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the machines listed in Annexures 'A' and 'B' were seized and handed over to the appellant under a document called "superdinama," with an undertaking to keep them safe and produce them when required. Despite being in the appellant's custody, the seized goods were considered under Customs control, acknowledging the authority's involvement in the matter. Regarding the interpretation of the explanation to Section 114A, it was established that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2000, made the explanation part of Section 114A. The phrase "the provisions of this section" in the explanation encompassed all clauses of Section 114A, clarifying that no penalty under Section 112 should be levied, as specified in the last proviso of Section 114A. Since no arguments were presented on the case's merits and the raised contentions did not justify waiving the pre-deposit requirement, an interim stay of the impugned order was granted on the condition that 50% of the penalty amount be deposited within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal, with the remaining amount payable under the order subject to pre-deposit waiver upon the initial deposit. Compliance reporting was scheduled for 5-7-2006, concluding the judgment proceedings.
|
