9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962. Besides, there is order of confiscation of the said goods which are valued at Rs. 7,62,551/- under Sections 111(d), (f), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, however, granting redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Further ordered for confiscation of 155.685 MTs. of Bushling scrap imported under Bill of Entry No. 5281, dated 15-2-93 under Section 119 of the Customs Act. However, they were directed to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 40,000/-. The Bank guarantee furnished by the appellants for Rs. 1,85,745/- has been adjusted towards the redemption fine. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the appellant factory and Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Puneet Bhatia under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o an extent of 55.31 MTs. of Zinc/tin coated sheets/coils and uncoated coils for the purpose of end use, i.e. for the purpose of melting. Various evidences were also placed by the appellants to contend that there is no violation of any provisions of law. However, the Collector in his order did not agree with the appellants and held that material to the extent of 55.315 MTs. cannot be considered as Bushling scraps and that they are required to pay duty as short levy. The plea for mutilation was also rejected and the Collector proceeded to impose penalties and fine as indicated above. 3. The matter was argued on behalf of the appellants by Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Consultant at great length. He took up a preliminary objection that the Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uested for taking up the matter on today. 4. Ld. Consultant again reiterated his preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction. 5. Ld. DR Ms. Aruna Gupta submits that she had addressed a letter to Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai on 12-10-99 seeking a report on this aspect of the matter. The said letter addressed by her had been duly acknowledged by Tax Assistant Shri D. Sridhar of Judicial Cell, Chennai-II. As there was no response, another reminder was sent on 4-11-99 by Shri S. Kannan, ld. JDR calling upon the Commissioner to immediately sent the report by fax and had noted it as Most Urgent . Ld. DR points out that the Commissioner has not responded to both the letters and prays for some extension of time so that she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without reference of the matter to the Collector of Customs to whom the appellants had executed the bond. The Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) who was issued the show cause notice ought to have explained to the Tribunal on being called upon that a special order has been issued by the Board to the Central Excise authority to issue show cause notice under Section 28 empowering the Collector of Central Excise to initiate the proceedings under the Customs Act. But the Commissioner even after specifically called upon to file the report on the jurisdiction issue has failed to report and therefore we are constrained to draw adverse influence to hold that the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
