9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is reduced. - 375/64/DBK/2008-RA-CUS - 180/2010-CUS, - Dated:- 3-5-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. [Order]. This revision application is filed by M/s. East West Industrial Exports, B-XXI-4096, Guru Nanak Street No. 4, Gill Road, Ludhiana (Applicant) against the order-in-appeal No. 98/Cus/LDH/2008, dated 20-8-2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. East West Industrial Exports, B-XXI-4096, Guru Nanak Street No. 4, Gill Road, Ludhiana are a Merchant Exporter engaged in the export of Paper Paper Board falling under chapter Heading 48 of the Customs Tariff. The applicant had exported their goods and claimed duty Drawback of both the Excise Customs por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravention to the provisions of Section 50(2) and Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The impugned goods were also rendered liable for confiscation under Section 113(h)(ii) of the Act for the aforesaid contraventions. Accordingly, the applicant was show caused proposing recovery of Drawback of the Central Excise portion along with the interest leviable thereon amounting to Rs. 15,78,688/- under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, confiscation of the impugned goods valued at Rs. 75,03,666/- covered under the above said shipping bills under section 113(h((ii) of the Act and imposition of penalty under section 114(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable and the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 is untenable and contrary to law. 4.2 That the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise is not justified in holding that the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority is reasonable and it needs no interference, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise is not based on proper appraisal of fact and law applicable in the matter. 4.3 That Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise had failed to consider applicant s contention that the claim for Draw Back by the applicant was based on the declarations of the suppliers and bona fides of the applicant are apparent from the declaration duly confirmed by the Customs Excise Authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Manager of the applicant-company had admitted in his statement that they knew about the availment Cenvat credit facility by the manufacturer-suppliers. As such this intention to avail drawback facility willfully stands established and therefore order for imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be assailed. 8. However, it is observed that the irregularly availed drawback claim of Rs. 13,06,043/- along with interest of Rs. 2,72,642/- was deposited/paid back voluntarily by the applicant during investigation of this case. Government notes that keeping in view of the overall circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed is harsh and needs to be reduced. Therefore, Government reduces the personal penalty to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
