9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Licence for a total value of Rs. 4,99,74,509/-. Later, the appellant M/s. Sajawat Industries Ltd. took over M/s. A & A Zippers. Since the appellants did not fulfill the export obligation, the Revenue proceeded against them. The Adjudicating authority held that the benefit of Notification 160/92 (Cus.) dated 20-4-92 under which the duty exemption was claimed in respect of 15 Nos. of imported machines is not available as the export obligation had not been fulfilled. He held that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He gave them an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,00,000/- under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He demanded duty of Rs. 2,38,23,605/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve rate of duty of such goods was reduced to 25% as against 65%. At the time of assessment Bills of Entry, the said notification has been duly applied and legal undertaking as well as Bank Guarantee was furnished on the quantification of differential duty forgone on the said basis. The Adjudicating authority therefore, failed to apply his mind in this regard. (iv) In the absence of allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants willfully sought to avail the benefit of notification so as to gain financial benefit without ever intending to completion of export obligation, confiscation of impugned goods under Section 111(o) is not sustainable. Tribunal decision in the case Philips (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustification for holding the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) as there was no wilful non-compliance of the Notification. The appellant's unit has also become sick and the BIFR proceedings have been initiated. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine. There is also no justification for imposing any penalty as the appellant had not willfully violated the conditions of the Notification. There is also no provision at that time in the said notification for demanding interest. Hence we set aside the demand of interest. In view of the above findings, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority for re-quantification of duty liability by taking into account the export o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
