9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnational Limited are engaged in the manufacture of picture tubes for black and white TV and computer monitors. The raw material and components for the manufacture of picture tubes are procured from local market or imported. Glass neck tube is one of the raw material which was imported on payment of concessional rate of customs duty in terms of Notification No. 64/95 dated 16-3-1995. The department alleged that the Notification No. 64/95-Cus. provided concessional rate of customs duty on the imported glass neck tubes subject to the conditions that such tube is used in the manufacture of glass shell/parts of TV picture tube. M/s. Tosha International, however, removed the glass neck tubes which were imported by them on payment of concessional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared from the factory under the provision of Rule 57F(1) (ii). It was also alleged that the goods in dispute appeared to have been imported by M/s. TIL at concessional rate of duty for using the same in the manufacture of CP tubes but same were cleared otherwise without discharging proper customs duty. It was also alleged that the glass neck tubings were cleared from the factory of M/s. TIL without cover of a proper invoice and without reversing Modvat credit involved on such inputs as provided under Rule 57F(1)(ii). The goods were, therefore, seized in the reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation. Accordingly a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated, why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 320 picture tubes is only Rs. 26,432/- whereas the value of raw material so left in the factory was Rs. 12.84 lakhs; that the goods were inside the factory premises, the question of Central Excise duty being paid at this stage did not arise. It was submitted that the correct value of finished goods is Rs. 14,45,823/-. 4. It was submitted that the value of modvatable inputs and rejected goods lying in the factory is incorrect and actual value of such material lying in the factory is only Rs. 28.70 lakhs. It was pointed out that there were some errors and mistakes and, therefore it was requested that the figures may be rechecked. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Addl. Commissioner confiscated 80 pallets of glass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that the factory closed down due to labour trouble and, therefore the goods were lying in the factory at various places and that the goods could not be entered in the statutory records; that there was no intention to remove the goods without payment of duty. Ld. Counsel submits that because of closure of the factory, there was no person concerned with the maintenace of records and, therefore the officer available at the time of seizure could not explain the facts as there was no person concerned with the excise work. He submits that out of total stock of finished goods a major quantity of intermediate goods which are normally not sold in the market and, therefore non-entry of the same does not show an intention to evade payment of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad violated the condition of Notification No. 64/95-Cus. He submits that excess goods unaccounted for were correctly confiscated for violation of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that the finished goods were lying at various places which were not accounted for in the statutory records. He, therefore submits that the goods have been correctly confiscated. The ld. JDR submitted that the order of detention virtually amounts to seizure, the only difference being that physical possession is not taken by the person entitled to effect seizure, all the same the manufacturer is not in a position to remove or deal with the goods. He cited and relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M. Mohammed v. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir confiscation is concerned, we note that the goods in the instant case were detained and we agree with the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that detention virtually amounts to seizure. Thus, we hold that confiscation of detained goods is sustainable in law. 12. Insofar as the quantum of redemption fine is concerned, the same is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs in respect of the goods valued at Rs. 14,45,822.50 and Rs. 5 lakhs in respect of the goods valued at Rs. 57,10,263/-. 13. Insofar as imposition of the penalty is concerned, we note that the penalty of Rs. 3,74,240/- has been imposed on M/s. Tosha International Limited under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
