9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Duty demand on excess goods, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty on the company
Duty Demand on Excess Goods: The Appellant's representative argued that the company had no role in the mistake made by an employee who added extra goods to the truck meant for delivery outside the zone. The goods in question were not provisionally released and were still in the custody of the company within the zone. The Appellant sought a lenient view, emphasizing that the duty demand for these goods was not justified. The ld. SDR contended that the company had no valid reason to clear goods exceeding the permitted amount and should not blame the employees. The tribunal considered both arguments and decided to set aside the duty demand. It was ruled that applicable duty would be chargeable when the impugned goods are cleared from the zone. Confiscation of Goods: The tribunal ruled that the confiscation of the quantity of material for which permission for clearance was available should be set aside since the UNICEF material was being cleared under due permission. However, the confiscation of the remaining goods, for which there was no permission to clear outside the zone, was deemed justified. The tribunal noted that the removal of these goods had been prevented, and they would have to pay duty when cleared. The amount of redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 30,000, considering the circumstances. Penalty on the Company: Regarding the penalty imposed on the Appellant-Company for attempting to remove goods outside the zone without payment of duty and permission, the tribunal found the penalty justified. However, considering the explanation that the employee responsible for the mistake had been separately penalized, the penalty on the company was reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000. No orders were passed concerning the confiscation of the vehicle and the penalty imposed on Shri Param Das, as there was no appeal against them. This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata highlights the importance of adhering to permissions granted for clearing goods and the consequences of attempting to remove goods without proper authorization. The tribunal balanced the leniency sought by the Appellant with the need to uphold duty requirements and penalties for unauthorized actions, ultimately providing a nuanced decision on duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the company involved.
|
