9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed one unit of "Asphalt Hot Mix Plant Batch Type MSD 2000 Capacity 160 TPH"through Mumbai port vide Bill of Entry no. 676500 dated 19.05.2006. The goods were assessed at a value of Rs.1,98,73,164/-. The appellant claimed the benefit of duty exemption amounting to Rs. 73,00,663/- under serial no. 230 of notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 as amended. The exemption under said notification was a conditional exemption and the condition read as follows:- "If,- (a) the goods are imported by- (i) the Ministry of Surface Transport, or (ii) a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2005 wherein the appellant was awarded the contract for constructin of Milkipur-Amanganj Road, length 17.5 KM in the State of UP and the benefit of customs duty exemption was claimed on the strength of the above contract for road construction in the State of UP. Investigation carried out subsequently by the department in 2008 revealed that the appellant did not use the imported equipment for construction of roads in the State of UP at all but had diverted the same and used the equipment for carrying out construction of road in the State of Rajasthan as a sub-contractor of Punj Lloyd Ltd., and thereafter, since November 2008, the imported equipment was shifted to Chidambaram in Tamilnadu for carrying out a contract of road construction fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of fine of Rs.40 lakhs under the provisions of section 125 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on the importer under section 114A and a penalty of Rs.1.00 lakhs under section 117. He also imposed penalties of Rs.5.00 lakhs on Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Managing Director of the appellant firm under section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the said Managing Director under Section 117 ibid. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs on Shri V.S.Rao, Chief Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the appellant firm under section 112 (a) & (b) and a penalty of Rs.30,000/- under section 117 of the Customs Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid exemption. Therefore, he pleads for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the conditions of the exemption have to be construed very strictly. In the instant case, the appellant at the time of importation of goods claimed duty exemption on the ground that they had a contract for construction of roads in the State of UP and it was on that basis the appellants were allowed the benefit of exemption. However, the appellants never used the equipment for the construction of roads in the State of UP but diverted the same elsewhere for construction of roads as a sub-contractor to Punj Lloyd Ltd in Rajasthan and Oriental Structural Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction of roads. As per the conditions stipulated in the exemption notification an importer can claim the benefit of exemption even as a sub-contractor provided they are named as a sub-contractor in the contract for construction of roads. In the instant case, even this condition is not satisfied. Therefore, we are, prima facie, of the view that the appellant has not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the exemption under which they imported the goods and consequently they have violated the terms and conditions of the exemption. 7. In view of the above, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the customs duty confirmed against them within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 03.04.2012. On such complianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
