9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in September 1993. The appellants have already paid duty but are contesting the imposition of penalty. 2. The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing Thermoplastic Shoe Sole components and Poly Urethane Shoe soles. They imported Polyol, Isocynates and Pupaint and these were warehoused in the private bonded house inside the factory premises under the provisions of Sections 60 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81. The above raw material had been imported under the 100% EOU scheme duty free to utilize the same for the export product as per the undertaking given to the Development Commissioner and to the Central Excise Department of its jurisdiction. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that there was no intention to remove the raw material from the factory premises and the keys were with the range Superintendent and, therefore, no penalty was leviable. He also submitted that although they had paid duty, but, however, the penalty should not have been imposed. He, further, submitted that interest cannot be levied from the date the goods warehoused but it has to be restricted, if at all to be levied, only from the date on which duty imposed. 5. Ld. DR supported the order and submitted that it is very clear from the proceedings that the key of the private warehouse was retained by the former Vice-President Shri M.L. Kankaria and the same was removed by them. He submitted that the value of the goods removed was very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material by lodging any claim with the police regarding theft etc. or its removal by any other person, therefore, the appellants having full knowledge of the same is deemed to have connived with the offence of removing the goods without notice of the department. The penalty imposed is 10% of the value and the same is required to be confirmed. The appellant s contention that there was no mens rea in removing the raw materials and no penalty is imposable cannot be accepted for the reason that the goods were found to be not available in the private bonded warehouse on being examined by the visiting officers. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the offence has been brought home and penalty imposed is sustainable. We confirm the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
