9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail of a DFRC licence to pay the balance of the duty and on the extent of the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation, we find merit in the contention of the petitioners that no reasons have been indicated in the order of the Settlement Commission. The order of the Settlement Commission notes in Paragraph 14.2 the submission of the Jurisdictional Commissioner that a blanket opinion as to whether DFRC licences can be used for debit could not be furnished without actually verifying the details of the licences such as date of issue, date of expiry, name of the licence holder and conditions mentioned in the licence. This part of the arguments of the Revenue was, in our view, fair and proper. The Settlement Commission indicated no reasons for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on three grounds : (i) The Settlement Commission rejected the prayer of the petitioners to utilize a DFRC licence for the payment of the balance duty, without indicating any reasons; (ii) Under the proviso to Section 125(1), the fine in lieu of confiscation cannot exceed in the case of imported goods, the market price less the duty chargeable thereon. The assessable value of the goods, according to the Revenue, is Rs. 86 lakhs (based on a market enquiry). The duty is Rs. 80.58 lakhs. Hence, the imposition of a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs is contrary to the proviso to Section 125(1); (iii) No reasons have been indicated for imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the first petitioner and of Rs. 50,000/- on the second petitioner. 4. On the other hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed. 6. Both on the issue as to whether the petitioners should be permitted to avail of a DFRC licence to pay the balance of the duty and on the extent of the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation, we find merit in the contention of the petitioners that no reasons have been indicated in the order of the Settlement Commission. We may note, at this stage, that the submission of the petitioners is that the Notification dated 11 September 2009 (Notification 98/2009-Cus.) of the Union Government of the Ministry of Finance does not prohibit the petitioners from paying the balance of duty by availing of a DFRC licence. Further, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the licence could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be necessitated. 7. Accordingly, we remit the proceedings to the Settlement Commission to re-examine two issues : (i) Whether the utilization of the DFRC licence should be allowed subject to verification in all respects, for the purposes of paying the balance of the duty liability of Rs. 19.79 lakhs? and (ii) Whether the fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 15 lakhs needs to be modified having regard to the provisions of the proviso to Section 125(1)? The Settlement Commission shall pass a fresh order on the aforesaid two aspects alone after considering the submissions of the parties and in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not disturbed the rest of the order of the Settlement Commission. The petition shall accordingly sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
