9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(a) of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs. The impugned order has demanded customs duty of over Rs. 5.40 crores from M/s. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. (MALCO for short) under Section 28(1) of the Act and has appropriated towards such demand the amount of Rs. 4.85 crores deposited by the company. The matter relates to import of machinery for the Industrial Pollution Prevention Project of MALCO funded by the World Bank, for which ICICI Bank is the project implementing authority. The importer claimed the benefit of Notification No. 84/97-Cus. dated 11-11-97 as amended by Notification No. 85/99-Cus. dated 6-7-99. One of the conditions for the exemption claimed under the Notification was that a certificate from the project impleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty on machinery imported for the project. An officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India in the Line Ministry was required to countersign the certificate. This was to ensure that the certification by the project implementing authority was genuine and could be acted upon by the Customs authorities. In the present case, it is seen from the certificate of ICICI Bank that the bank themselves guided the importer to get the certificate countersigned by competent officer in the Ministry of finance. At the foot of the certificate, the bank made the following entries :- For the Ministry of Finance Authorized Signatory It appears from the records that the bank went to the extent of engaging a person, by name C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the West Zonal Bench (Order S/902-908/WZB/2006 dated 10-11-2006 [2007 (209) E.L.T. 204 (Tri. - Mumbai)]) which granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in favour of the bank and Shri Rakesh Yadav in a case relating to a similar project import by M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. We have perused this order of the coordinate Bench and we find that any copy of the certificate issued by the bank to the importer was not produced before that Bench. In the instant case, we have seen the relevant certificate and, on that basis, prima facie, we have found the bank s involvement in the case. Thus, the case considered by West Zonal Bench is distinguishable. 4. None of the appellants has made out prima facie case against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
