Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (12) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9 and 23834, dt. 3-5-1989 on behalf of two importers and sought clearance of the goods imported under OGL seeking concession in terms of the Customs Notification 345/86 as amended which is an end-use concessional Notification . The goods were assessed and cleared at concessional rate of duty of 35% in terms of the said Notification and the importers also executed end-use bond for Rs. 3,16,175/- each towards differential duty if any binding themselves that they would deliver within one year end-use certificate from the competent authority to the satisfaction of the Collector to the effect that the imported goods viz. cyclohexanone were used in the manufacture of blank tapes and the bonds were executed on 9-5-1989. In addition to the bond, P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... BEs on behalf of the importers and it is only the importers who are liable to pay duty under the Act and this is clearly set out in the show cause notice and if for any reason the importers have not discharged the duty liability, the appellant who merely stood as surety can only be proceeded against for enforcement of the surety bond in accordance with law and the Department can only have the recourse to Civil Court and cannot purport to exercise jurisdiction as the adjudicating authority and pass an order purporting to be an order in adjudication under the Act. It was further submitted that one Shri K.M. Poddar was directly involved in the import of the goods in question, and as referred to in para 5 of the impugned order Punjab Sind Ban .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s (Appg.) Customs House, Madras - 1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why : (a) the differential duty of Rs. 3,16,175/- should not be paid by them under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962; (b)the imported consignment should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; (c)they are not liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." In similar lines, in the show cause notice, dated 30-10-1989, against the importer M/s. Wello Magnetic Tape Company, a demand for a differential duty of Rs. 3,16,175/- is made under Section 28 of the Act. It is, therefore, evident that the Department has proceeded on the basis that the goods were imported by two Companies a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n adjudication. In other words enforcement of the terms of the bond against a surety is not an order in adjudication within the meaning of the Act and cannot be construed to be as such. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is not an order in adjudication and therefore not appealable. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has purported to pass the impugned order as an order in adjudication with a preamble, the same is appealable before the Tribunal under Section 129-A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant is entitled in law to have the impugned order declared by the Tribunal as not an order in adjudication. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is not an order in adju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority while holding the appellant liable to pay the demand in terms of the guarantee executed by him on behalf of the importers, M/s. Advance Magnatape Company has also held that recovery can be made also from the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. I observe that in the narration of facts in the show cause notice, no basis has been laid for invoking the provisions of Sec. 147. All that have been set out in the show cause notice is that the appellant by virtue of being a guarantor is liable to pay the amount demanded from the importers. The learned lower authority obviously has traversed beyond the terms of show cause notice by invoking the provisions of Section 147. In the opening paragraph of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates