9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Aluminium, Copper, brass mild steel scrap etc and re-exported the processed final products. The scrap that generated out of this process consisted of outer casing of the cabled wire. The appellants sought permission to clear it, describing it as rubber scrap on payment of appropriate duty. Permission was granted. The appellants removed 12.500 MTs of scrap. It appeared that the goods were examined before clearance. The trucks that were used for removing the goods were intercepted outside KFTZ, samples of the material were drawn in the presence of panchas on 1-1-2000 and 4-1-2000 and sent for analysis. The test resulted in the finding that that the trucks were carrying plastic scrap but not rubber scrap as declared by the appellants. It may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods under Customs Tariff. He also valued the goods in question to be US $ 200 PMT. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority except that he reduced the penalty on the company from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Hence these appeals. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The ld. Consultant, Shri Arthur Prem on behalf of the appellants pleaded that the goods in question were manufactured in India and therefore the provisions of Customs Act are not applicable. An unit working in KFTZ has to be considered on par with any unit working in the domestic tariff area. The Commissioner erred in upholding the order of the lower authority who invoked the provisions of both Customs and Central Excise Acts; that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty is imposable; that the goods have to be classified under Customs Tariff and the aggregate of Customs duty are payable on the goods cleared in DTA when they are sought to be removed without the permission of the KFTZ authority. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, we observe that invocation of provisions of Customs Act when goods are removed from the factory situated in the India is wholly warranted. But we observe that the lower authority invoked provisions of Central Excise Act both for confiscation of the goods and for demanding differential duty. The appellant themselves made only a passing reference to this in the appeal memorandum stating that the authority below were not sure which provisions apply whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the goods after classifying the goods under Chapter heading 39 of the Customs Tariff, we cannot find fault with it. 9. Secondly, duty was demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. We have already held that the Provisions of Customs Act do not apply. The demand under Section 11A is sustainable inasmuch as appropriate duty has not been discharged. The goods were removed from the premises of the appellants unauthorisedly. 10. In regard to valuation, the authorities adopted the value at which similar goods were imported. The appellants did not produce any evidence before the lower authorities as to what according to them is the correct value. Plastic scrap is not a regular item of import nor is easily ascertainable p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
