9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of capital goods duty-free, failure to fulfill export obligation, demand of duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, waiver of duty liability, destruction of goods, legal provisions under Notification No. 133/94, appeal against the order. Analysis: The appellant imported capital goods worth Rs. 2 crore duty-free under specific notifications for their unit in NEPZ and faced business failure. They sought permission to destroy the goods and waive duty liability as per Notification No. 133/94. The Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 80,65,384, confirmed confiscation, and imposed penalties under Customs Act and Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that the imported goods were used for intended purposes, leading to a small quantity of exported goods. Due to business failure and heavy losses, they requested destruction of goods and waiver of duty. The Commissioner rejected this plea, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal noted no irregularities in import/local procurement, diversion of goods, or mala fide intent. The case involved a request to destroy goods after significant investment due to business failure. Notification No. 133/94 allows destruction of goods in such cases, supported by a CBEC circular permitting destruction under current provisions. The Tribunal held that the situation fell under para 7(ii) of Notification No. 133/94, allowing destruction of goods and waiving duty liability. Thus, there was no scope for duty demand or penalties, which were set aside. The order of confiscation was not challenged, allowing disposal/destruction of goods as per the law. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the demand of penalty and penalties imposed on the appellants set aside. The Tribunal upheld the waiver of duty liability and destruction of goods under Notification No. 133/94, emphasizing the specific provisions for cases of business failure and investment loss.
|
