9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever it was noticed that without taking the permission of Customs authority, they shifted 76 Nos. Computer Systems to the licensed warehouse at Mysore and also 37 Nos. Computer Systems were shifted to unlicensed premises at Rajajinagar. In view of the above, proceedings were initiated. The Original authority apart from demanding the Customs duty on these items held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(j) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, he confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112(a) read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Respondent approached the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t tenable as the status of the unit (to which the material is being transferred) is itself not covered by the notification granting such exemption. This way the Commissioner (Appeals) had granted undue benefit to the unit by travelling beyond the statutory provisions of the Act and provisions contained in the notification to provide. Section 111(j) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for the situation under which the goods so removed can be confiscated and the situation in the present case, where the goods from the bonded premises had been cleared in violation of conditions of the notifications and without any permission, clearly warrants invocation of these provisions making the goods liable for confiscation. Commissioner (A) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajajinagar. There is also no allegation that the goods were not to be used for export. In fact there is only a technical violation in not bonding the premises from the Customs authority. These factors were taken into account by the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the demand of duty. Moreover, the Commissioner is correct in stating that the demand of duty on the goods is premature as the goods are still in the bonded warehouse. Only due to certain business exigencies, there was a lapse of not bonding the premises before the goods were shifted. For these violations, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly upheld the imposition of penalty/fine. In my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order appears to be legal and proper. Hence the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
