2017 (3) TMI 1093 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - benefit of N/N. 53/1997-Cus dated 03.06.1997 - import of Multi Blade Frame Saw (MBFS) - denial of benefit on the ground that the machinery was not put to use, which is the condition of notification to avail benefit - Held that - The appellants argue that they could not put into operation as the supplementary machines were not imported due to differences with the bank cannot exonerate them of their responsibility as they did not get extension of time period from the Customs for putting the machine into operation within prescribed time - benefit rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of Custom Duty and Central Excise duty
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellant and director
3. Confiscation of imported goods and redemption option
4. Compliance with provisions of law regarding machinery import and operation
5. Allegations of shortage of goods and clandestine removal
6. Opportunity for personal hearing and fairness of the process

Confirmation of demand of Custom Duty and Central Excise duty:
The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of Custom Duty and Central Excise duty against the appellant, along with penalties equivalent to the Central Excise duty. The penalty was imposed on both the appellant company and its director. The order also involved the confiscation of imported goods, providing an option for redemption upon payment of a fine.

Compliance with provisions of law regarding machinery import and operation:
The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to comply with the law by not putting the imported machinery into operation within the required timeframe. Despite citing reasons such as disputes with the bank for not being able to operate the machinery, the appellants did not seek an extension of time from the Customs authorities as mandated by the law.

Allegations of shortage of goods and clandestine removal:
The appellants argued that the shortage of goods was nominal and primarily due to samples sent to buyers, not clandestine removal. However, they failed to provide evidence to substantiate this claim, leading to doubts about the validity of their defense.

Opportunity for personal hearing and fairness of the process:
The appellants claimed that the impugned order was issued without giving them a fair opportunity to prepare and present their case. However, the Tribunal noted that multiple opportunities for personal hearings were provided, which the appellants did not utilize effectively. The Adjudicating authority proceeded based on the facts and circumstances on record due to the appellants' failure to engage adequately in the process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that it was rightfully passed against the appellants. The appeals were dismissed, and the order was sustained based on the findings and discussions presented during the proceedings.