9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which were required to be exported thus penalties had been correctly imposed – Held that:- Assessee had made wrong declarations in the export documents by which the goods exported were liable to confiscation – they were liable to penalty u/s 114 – they had not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed u/s 114 for handling such goods. stay petition – waiver of pre deposit - Assesses were directed to pay 50% of the penalties imposed upon them u/s 114 - On payment of the pre-deposit - stay on the remaining amounts of penalties would be granted – appeal decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.: C/10310 to 10312 & 10443 of 2013 and E/10313 to 10315 & 10442 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no stage they have handled the offending goods. He relied upon the judgment of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s. T.S. Makkar vs. CCE Surat [order No. A/1491-1492/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 10.10.2012]. It was argued by him that as per this decision, penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be imposed and complete waiver of the penalties may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned AR argued that appellants had the knowledge that the goods obtained under duty exemption are not utilized for the manufacture of finished goods which were required to be exported and therefore, penalties have been correctly imposed by the adjudicating authority. 4. After hearing both sides at length, it is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules, 1944 are not imposable because the appellants in that case did not deal with the goods. 6. In view of the decision already taken by this Bench, appellants have made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act and Rule 209 A/ Rule 26 of the relevant Central Excise Rules. 7. So far as the imposition of penalties on M/s. Al-Amin Exports and M/s. Sunshine Overseas, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that adjudicating authority while deciding the issue under OIO No. 6/Dem/2012-13 and 7/Dem/2012-13 has clearly held that Shri Irfan Saiyed Partner of M/s. Al-Amin Exports has admitted that the goods exported by them were purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77. 9. From the facts available on records, it is apparent that appellant M/s. Al-Amin Exports and M/s. Sunshine made wrong declarations in the export documents by which the goods exported were liable to confiscation and accordingly, both the appellants are liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the above, appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for handling such goods in some manner. Appellant M/s. Al-Amin Exports and M/s. Sunshine Overseas are directed to pay 50% of the penalties imposed upon them und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
