9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t M/s. PML Industries Ltd., Derabassi Distt. Patiala to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 3,97,08,666/- @ 20% per annum under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 34/96-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 9-10-96 till the said amount is paid; (iii) The demand of the customs duty of Rs. 21,55,28,397/- and Central Excise Rs. 9,76,682/- involved on the capital goods imported duty free and procured indigenously without payment of duty as proposed in the show cause notice dt. 30-9-99 is not confirmed and M/s. PML Industries Ltd. Derabassi Distt. Patiala are allowed to continue the capital goods bonded and work as 100% EOU till the decision of the Development Commissioner, NEPZ, Noida on the notice dated 7-7-99 for suspension of LOA and debonding of the unit of the noticee No. 1; (iv) I confiscate duty free imported capital goods valued at Rs. 26,31,93,429/- under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, but allow them to redeem the same on payment of token redemption fine Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs only) as they intend to continue as 100% EOU. The goods if redeemed will continue to be bonded in the bonded warehouse of M/s. PML Industries Ltd., Derabass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res only) upon M/s. PML Industries Ltd., Derabassi under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 9(2), 151, 209, 225 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ix) I also impose personal penalty Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) upon M/s. PML Industries Ltd., Derabassi under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the contravention of the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; (x) I impose personal penalty Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lacs only) each upon M/s. Agricom Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai M/s. Allana Investment and Trading Co., Mumbai and M/s. Frigario Conserva Allana Ltd., Mumbai under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (xi) I impose personal penalty Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) upon M/s. Allanasons Ltd., Mumbai under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (xii) I also impose personal penalty Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lacs only) upon M/s. Frigorifico Allana Ltd., Sahibabad under Rule 209A read with 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (xiii) I also impose personal penalty Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) upon Shri A.S. Bindra, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalties and redemption fines as indicated earlier in this order. 4. The very first submission of PML is that the appellant s export obligation was in terms of the approval granted by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and that that authority has accepted the appellant s claim that the machinery have been put to production and the products exported through the three parties M/s. Agrico Food Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Allana Investment and Trading Com and M/s. Frigario Conserva Allana Limited. During the hearing of the case, appellant has placed on record order dated 14th November, 2002 passed by the Development Commissioner, Noida Export Processing Zone accepting the performance of export obligation. The appellant points out that the acceptance of export obligation by the DGFT has knocked the bottom out of the charge to the contrary confirmed in the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also pointed out that, contrary to the findings in the impugned order (that there was no export by PML and that the clearances to their buyers should be taken as domestic sales) the customs authorities are now accepting that the appellant s sales to three parties could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not exported. 7. Learned SDR has pointed out that the impugned order has been passed because of several procedural lapses committed by the appellant. The goods had not been cleared under AR-4 or other prescribed documents and exports could not be correlated because of appellant s name being not mentioned in the Shipping bills. 8. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The subject matter of this order was the subject matter of show cause notice by the DGFT authorities also. The impugned order itself has noted at Para 17.5 that Development Commissioner, Noida has already issued show cause notice vide F. No. 11/23/92-100% EOU-I Vol. II, dated 7-7-99 to M/s. PML Industries Ltd., asking them to explain the position about their letter of undertaking. Thus, on the very same issue of export obligation, customs authorities are undertaking parallel proceedings and reaching opposite findings. This is not to be. Multiplicity of proceedings only leads to confusion and harassment. The export obligation of an EOU is an obligation under the permission granted by the DGFT. An EOU is also bound by an undertaking to the DGFT in regard to export o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
