9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally, we also note that a 'rectification-of-mistake' application filed by the Commissioner against the decision of the Larger Bench was rejected by that Bench and also that the Civil Appeal filed by the Commissioner against the Larger Bench decision on the referred issues was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Commissioner of Customs v. Hico Enterprises - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 2. The appellant in this appeal had imported polypropylene and filed a Bill of Entry on 30-3-1994 for its duty-free clearance under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92 on the strength of an advance licence, which had earlier been transferred to them by M/s. Amar Taran Exports. After investigation, the department found that, in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 112(a) of the Act, the penalty on the appellant amounting to Rs. 1.00 lakh. There is no appeal of M/s. Amar Taran Exports before us. We have to deal with the appeal of Hico Enterprises only and, that too, in the light of the Larger Bench decision on the referred issues. 3. The Larger Bench was considering the following issues : "(a) Whether the benefit of legal maxim LEX NON COG1T AD IMPOSSIBILIA would be available to a valid recognized transferee to avail the benefit of the DEEC exemption Notification? Or (b) Whether the original licencee is to satisfy the condition of the Notification or the transferee of the licence?" 4. Both the above questions were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s benefit stands allowed to the appellant vide the judgment of the Larger Bench and the judgment of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal filed against the Larger Bench's decision. It would follow that neither any duty can be demanded from the appellant on the ground of breach of Condition No. V (a) ibid, nor any penalty could be imposed on them on the same ground. The penalty of Rs 1.00 lakh was imposed on the appellant on the ground that, by committing breach of the above condition of the notification, they rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. This decision of the Commissioner cannot be sustained inasmuch as the benefit of the aforesaid legal maxim is available to them and consequently it was imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
