9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d customs duty demand of Rs. 7,77,848/- from M/s. Core Emballage Ltd. and Rs. 1,12,173/- from M/s. Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd., apart from imposing penalties on the importing firm and on Shri Rajiv Mehta, Executive Director of M/s. Core Emballage Ltd. and Shri Indrajit Dhawan, Manager of Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rajesh Enterprise, the licence broker under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant M/s. Waddco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Indrajit Dhawan submits that the issue lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant procured transferable value based advance licence from the market on payment of consideration, after fulfilling of export oblig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence, the goods were assessed to duty by extending benefit of notification No. 79/95-Cus and out of charge given. Thus, there is no suppression on the part of the appellant in any manner whatsoever. They were under the bona fide belief that they are entitled to import the goods within the value limits prescribed in the licence. Inasmuch as the assessment has become final, the question of demand of any duty by denying the benefit of Notification and the question of imposition of penalty on the employee of the importing firm would not arise at all and therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand along with interest and also imposing penalty is clearly unsustainable in law. 3. As regards the other appellants, CEL Packaging Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to be adhered to and not the quantity restrictions. Thereafter, it appears that the customs had made reference to the licensing authorities who advised that both the quantity as well as the value limits specified in the advance licence should be complied with and accordingly, show-cause notices were issued alleging suppression. In the facts of the present case and from the evidence available on record, it is clear that at the time of clearance of the goods both the appellant and the department entertained the belief that if the value restrictions are complied with, the same would suffice and accordingly, the benefit of notification No. 79/95-Cus was extended and the assessment finalized accordingly. Therefore, the show-cause notice and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
