9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants - Appeals are rejected accordingly - C/434, 518-519/2006 - C/44-46/2011(PB) - Dated:- 21-1-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - All the three appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order, as the issue involved in all the appeals is identical. 2. As per the facts on record, the respondents are registered as a 100% EOUs and were importing High Speed Diesel Oil for use in the generator sets. The erstwhile Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997 and the current Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31-3-2003 exempt specified goods, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procured by M/s. Rana Polycot Ltd. from a bonded warehouse. On scrutiny of the documents, it is found that the goods were cleared by M/s. Rana Polycot Ltd. from the bonded warehouse under Shipping Bills. On scrutiny of the copies of the Ex-bond Shipping bills, in respect of above import of HSD by M/s. Ranacot Polycot Ltd., it is found that they have not paid any Additional Duty of Customs. M/s. Ranacot Polycot Ltd. have imported 10,10,939 litre of HSD since 19-11-2003 onwards evading thereby. Additional Duty of Customs @ Rs. 1.50 per litre amounting to Rs. 15,16,408.50. No imports in the past have been reported. 5. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the respondents culminating into an order passed by the Joint Commissioner co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d after having gone through the impugned orders, we find that identical issue stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of STI India Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Del.). It stands observed in the said order that as the HSD imported by the appellants were assessed on into bond. Bills of Entries and in the absence of any allegation that the goods were removed from the warehouse or were not used for the intended purpose, there cannot be any question of collection of duty. The said order of the Tribunal stands confirmed by the Larger Bench in the case of Paras Fab International v. CCE, Kandla reported as 2010 (100) RLTONLINE 116 (CESTAT-LB) = 2010 (256) E.L.T. 556 (Tri. - LB). 8. Apart from the merits of the case, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd. they have not been able to effectively rebut the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the removal of the goods from the warehouse was authorised by the Supdt. of Customs without payment of any Customs duty. It was he who should have been aware of the levy of the Additional Customs Duty in terms of Finance Act, 1995. We fully agree with the above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). Failure on the part of the respondents to invite the attention of the officers to the fact of non-payment of Additional Duty by the importer i.e. M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd. cannot be equated with any wilful and mala fide suppression of fact on the part of the appellants. 10. In view of our foregoing discussion, we upheld the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
