9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on appellants for not fulfilling export obligations. 2. Discrepancy regarding the diversion of imported material for home consumption. 3. Justification of separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor. 4. Validity of duty confirmation by the Commissioner. Analysis: 1. The appellant argued that the duty amount was deposited before confirmation by the Commissioner. They sought to waive the penalty imposed for not meeting export obligations due to material sent to job workers. The Commissioner found violations of Notification No. 80/95-Cus. due to unfulfilled export obligations. The job workers denied dealings with the appellants, leading to penalties. The appellant's claim of extending the export obligation period was not acknowledged. The Tribunal noted the lack of consideration for documentary evidence by the Collector. 2. The JDR countered, stating the imported material was not used for export products, supporting the Commissioner's findings of diversion for home consumption. The imposition of penalties on both appellants was deemed justified. The issue of separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor was left to the Tribunal's discretion. 3. After considering both sides, the Tribunal proceeded with the appeals after waiving the pre-deposit of penalties. It was confirmed that export obligations were not met, and the job workers denied receiving the material. The misuse of the DEEC scheme was established, leading to the rejection of M/s. Inter Trade's appeal. However, the Tribunal agreed that separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor were unwarranted, setting aside the penalty on the proprietor. 4. The appeal by M/s. Inter Trade was rejected, while the appeal by Shri Nirmal Kr. Saraswat was allowed, with consequential relief if applicable. The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation but modified the penalty imposition on the proprietor, emphasizing the settled law against separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor.
|
