9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under DEEC without approval. The revenue preferred an appeal against this order. The Tribunal in its order No. C-415-23/WIB/2002, dated 30-1-2002 [2002 (143) E.L.T. 167 (Tri. - Mumbai) disposed off the Revenues' appeal. While doing so the Tribunal observed as follows : "It is not possible to confirm the finding of the Commissioner that the conditions of notification have in substance been complied with. Doubtless, the export obligation has been fulfilled. However, the evidence on the basis of which he concludes that the goods which were imported by the respondent company were utilised in the manufacture of products that it exported, is not, in our view, sufficient to confirm his conclusion. The statement of Shahzade Alam, the manager Shira ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so be established from the records of these firms which, the Commissioner says, manufactured the goods. None of the them has in fact come forward to say so. The Commissioner's conclusion that the exported goods were in fact manufactured out of the goods supplied by he respondent company has no sufficient basis and therefore cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, the contention that the sale of the goods only, resulted in a technical or procedural contravention because the export obligations have been fulfilled, cannot be accepted. If the respondent were able to fulfil the export obligation without import of these goods, it would follow that it imported these goods only for the purpose of sale. That may be permitted by the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Thereupon the Tribunal took up the impugned order for disposal on 11-7-05. 5. The basic contention of the applicants in the ROM application is that the Tribunal erred in imposing penalties on M/s. Macnair Exports and Shri H.R. Bhat without first determining the quantum of duty evaded. The Tribunal in the impugned order remanded the matter to the Commissioner for determining the quantum of duty evaded. It is urged that a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act has a direct bearing on the duty sought to be evaded. Further it is argued that the Tribunal has not given any finding in regard to liability of the goods to confiscation but determined the quantum of penalty on the applicants. This according to the applicants is a paten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad actually made the exports and that if they had imported the goods subsequent to the export, they would have been entitled to the sale of the goods. The action in selling the goods would not have been contrary to law. In these circumstances we are of the view that penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the company, Rs. 15 lakhs on H.R. Bhat and Rs. 5 lakhs on Firoz Hajiyani under Section 112 of the Act will suffice". 10. It is clear from a reading of the above para that the Tribunal held that a penalty on the company, Shri H.R. Bhatt its Director and hiroz Hajiyani its Manager under Section 112 of the Customs Act is imposable because they contravened the provisions of a notification and not because they rendered the goods under question liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
