9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstrate that the goods which were cleared from their bonded warehouse had been loaded on to the foreign going vessel which was their prime responsibility - combined reading of Section 69 and 88 would indicate that once the goods were loaded or taken on board of any foreign going vessel - they had to be considered as exported out of India was a correct proposition - the invoices had been raised by the assessee which were paid by the purchaser of the gas oil and the bank remittance certificate clearly indicates an invoice number which was raised by the assessee – Applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved were allowed and recovery stayed - decided in favour of assessee. - C/10430, 10431, 10432, 10468/13 - Mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rs.25,00,000/- (u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962) 3. The above said amounts of customs duty has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority against the main appellant M/s. Adani Enterprise Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AEL) on the ground that the appellant M/s. AEL had obtained bunker oil under bond from various suppliers for supplying the same to foreign going vessels but has not actually supplied to them. The adjudicating authority has also observed that investigation has covered 31 shipping bills and various statements were recorded. The adjudicating authority's conclusion is basically based on the statements of the transporters, of the barge owners. 4. Ld. counsel Shri Nankani assisted by Shri A. Sheerazi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt where the merchant vessel was berthed has given a certificate of loading the same on such vessel. He would also draw our attention to the fact that M/s. AEL had raised an invoice of the said quantity in the name of the buyer and the said bill has been honoured by the buyer wherein the amount was remitted to Axis bank for which he would draw our attention to the bank remittance certificates. He would submit that be that as it may that appellant M/s. AEL during the investigation stage has deposited an amount of Rs.1.50 crores which is lying with the department which is almost 30% of the amount of duty confirmed by the lower authorities. He would submit that there cannot be any duty liability on the appellant on such goods as provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e preventive officers who were posted there. We specifically asked the ld. D.R. to make submissions on the shipping bill No.F2202 dated 7.12.06 for which he drew our attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority on the said shipping bill which is at paragraph No.45.7 and submitted that signature of the officer of customs was forged, is the finding. He would then read the findings as recorded by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that M/s. AEL has manipulated the records and that the bunker oil HSD (gas oil) has been diverted into the local market. He would submit that the ld. counsel's statement and the barge owners' statements clearly indicate the complexity of all these people in diversion of duty free imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for export by the customs authorities indicating on the shipping bill that "bonded bunker not to be landed". This would indicate that the warehoused gas oil. when they were imported duty free, has been removed from their warehouse for loading on to the vessel which is on a foreign run. We find that the landing certificate produced by the appellants includes signature of Master of vessel acknowledging the quantity of gas oil which is indicated in shipping bill no.2202. It is the case of the Revenue that the said landing certificate which is indicating signature of preventive officers of Customs, is not the signature of any preventive officer posted during the relevant period is a proposition which is to be taken with a pinch of salt as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant has during the investigation deposited an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores as against the confirmed demand of Rs.4.90 crores. We find the said amount deposited by the appellant as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeals as prima facie we have also found strong force in the submissions made by M/s. AEL which supports their case. Accordingly, applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeals. 13. As we have held prima facie there seems to be a case in the favour of M/s. AEL, applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts of penalties involved in respect of other stay petitions filed by other appellants for waiver of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
