9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act 1962 also seems to be correct - the order was correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The goods become liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 for violation of the provisions of Notification No.140/91 Cus (Now Notification No.52/2003 Cus.) read with the provisions of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Taking into consideration the fact of payment of full duty together with interest - a lenient view to be taken as regards confiscation of the impugned goods and also regarding imposition of penalty - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No: C/571/2006 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 26544 / 2013 - Dated:- 6-9-2013 - SHRI M. V. RAVINDRAN AND SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof in respect of capital goods needs to be confirmed and appropriated the amounts already paid by the appellants before issuance of show-cause notice. In the said impugned order, the adjudicating authority has held the goods are liable for confiscation but in his discretionary power did not confiscate the goods and did not impose any fine in lieu of confiscation and also did not impose any penalty on the respondent holding that the respondent having paid the duty along with interest before issuance of show-cause notice on being pointed out. 3. Learned departmental representative on behalf of the Revenue would submit that the adjudicating authority having held the goods are liable for confiscation has erred in not confiscating the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty liability on time expired bond and ineligible goods was worked out by the departmental authorities along with interest and informed to the respondent-assessee. The respondent-assessee discharged the same as was directed. 5.2 In view of the above factual matrix, the findings of the adjudicating authority for not confiscating the capital goods and non-imposition of penalty needs to be read, which is as under: 8. I find that M/s. RBIL had failed to seek and obtain extension of warehousing period in terms of Section 61 of Customs Act, 1962, in respect of the goods imported by them without payment of duty. Goods covered by these bonds had become obsolete and therefore were not being used for the development of software meant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llan dated 9.3.2006. This amount of Rs.28,37,930/- is liable to be appropriated towards the duties and interest (worksheet attached as Annexure I), under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 61 ibid, on account of deemed removal/failure to properly utilize the said goods for the specified purpose for which they were imported. The impugned goods become liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 for violation of the provisions of Notification No.140/91 Cus. Dated 22.10.1991 (Now Notification No.52/2003 Cus. Dated 31.3.2003) read with the provisions of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s RBIL also render themselves for penal action. However, taking into consideration the fact of payment of full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
