9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, the applicant has submitted that it is a merchant exporter of pharmaceutical raw materials (bulk drugs), which includes among others, Ampicillin, Amoxycillin etc. The applicant purchases goods from open market as well as manufacturers of repute, for exportation. The applicant has procured good from manufacturers under CT-1 Bond wherein, the duty free clearance of the excisable goods was granted to it by the manufacturers, and the applicant was in turn obliged to export the goods so procured as per its commitment. 2.2 It has received the following two notices from the Superintendent (Bond), Central Excise, Division K-II, Mumbai-IV for the excisable goods procured by it without payment of central excise duty, for export purpose (in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002). (i) F.No. DC (Exp) MN/150/26/03, dated 20-3-2006 Bond No. 150/26 Bond Amount Rs 1,50,00,000/- Valid upto :31-3-2007 Pending duty liablility: Rs. 1,27,25,151 /- (ii) F.No. Bond/4/132/MCM/MW/2004, dated 20-3-2006 Bond No. 4 '132 Bond Amount Rs. 50,00,000/- Valid upto 31-3-2007 Pending duty liability: Rs. 19,37,027/- 2.3 The total amount demanded vide the above two notices is Rs. 1,46,62,178 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned notices issued by the Central Excise authorities. The Seizure Memos shows that the goods were seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-1963, under the reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation under Central Excise Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 2002/Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962. Further, the goods mentioned at Sr. No (iv) and (v) above were seized vide panchanama dated 1-4-2006 alongwith the good of one M/s. Sai Shraddha Exim Pvt. Ltd. The applicant has further submitted that the detailed clarification on the issues involved and the manner of calculation of admitted duty liability, are contained in the sealed cover. 2.9 The SIIB Office (JNCH, Nhava Sheva) is also concerned with the matter an alert issued by them in respect of the applicant is pending and the export of consignments was allowed only after SIIB verification and in several cases test reports were also obtained by the Customs Authorities from Dy. CC, which confirmed the genuineness of exported goods. ECGC claims were also issued in respect of a few consignments, after verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cause Notices issued subsequent to his detention, and to grant his full co-operation in satisfying this Hon'ble Commission regarding true and full disclosure made in the Application; (c) This is only the first hearing of the instant application; (d) Even otherwise the Senior Counsel of the applicant has shown his unavailability to attend the matter today; (e) Considering the urgency expressed by the ld. Counsel in Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Shri Charles Patrick (detenu-through the Petitioner Shri Paschal Anthony D'Souza), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant liberty to move this Hon'ble Commission for adjournment; (f) Adjournment has been granted by this Hon'ble Commission in several other matters. (g) She also stated that the ld. Advocate for the co-applicant could not be present as he is appearing before the Hon'ble High Court. 4.1 The Revenue was represented by: (i) Shri KA. Shaikh, Assistant Director, Shri U.R. Naik, Sr. Intelligence Officer and Shri Parag Joshi, Intelligence Officer from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai. (ii) Shri N.S. Walia, Assistant Commissioner from the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Chandtgarh. (iii) Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant come up for settlement at the earliest rather than delay matters. (iv) The representative also referred to their report dated 6-6-2006 and 27-6-2006 and stated that the applicant has not come toward with a true and full disclosure, as in its application, it has admitted only duty pertaining to Central Excise but not pertaining to Customs. As per the current investigation the extent of Customs duty evasion is practically Rs. 4.51. crores and on the Central Excise side the evasion is Rs. 1,38,62,178/- and not Rs. 1,46,62,178/- mentioned by the applicant in the two SCNs already issued. (v) Apart from the said duty the other Central Excise duty involved on seized goods amounting to Rs. 7,96,886/-vide SCN dated 26-5-2006 is not part of the application. Similarly duty of Rs.6,95,877/- pertaining to 3 SCNs dated 26-5-2006 also have not been admitted. 4.3 The representative was at pains to stress the fact that the whole exorcise of filing the application is only to stall investigation which will confirm the exact duty liability which the applicant is seeking to hide and not disclose to the Hon'ble Bench. Further, the co-applicant has made a representation dated 29-5-2006 to the Det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y wherein request had been made to the Commission for recommending t' the COFEPOSA detaining authority to revoke the COFEPOSA order. In the aforesaid orders it was stated that the matters pertaining to levy assessment and collection of duty can only be taken up by the Settlement Commission in view of the statutory provision where as detention under COFEPOSA does not involve any of these. This is being mentioned here in view of the apprehension of the Revenue that the applicant and the co-applicant may seek undue advantage from higher judicial forum by way of delaying the proceedings in the Settlement Commission. 7. Accordingly the next date of hearing is fixed on 6th July, 2006 at 1630 hours. Secretariat is directed to communicate the said date to all the parties concerned today without fail. 8. All concerned arc informed accordingly." 3.1 Minutes before the next admission hearing on 6-7-2006 a further request for adjournment was received from the Advocate on record Shri Ravi Hirani in respect of this case reiterating the same grounds as contained in their previous letter dated 28-6-2006, which have been dealt with in the Interim Order dated 30-6-2006 (supra). 3.2 Revenue on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process and as of now it appears that the applicant has evaded duty as under:- (a) Central Excise: (i) Rs. 92 lakh on bulk drugs (approx) (ii) Rs. 6.95 lakh of formulation (approx.) (b) Customs duty: Rs. 4.51 crore (approx.) The applicant is not admitting any of the aforesaid duty liabilities and his present application, refers only to the so called "notices" dated 20-3-2006 (supra). Hence the additional duty disclosure made in neither true nor full. The DRI investigations are still being carried out. In view of the foregoing facts the applications are premature and need to be dismissed out right at the admission stage itself. If the applicant is able to pursue its case before the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court then it can also pursue the matter before the Settlement Commission and not seek unnecessary adjournments. 4.1 The Bench has gone through the request for adjournment made by the ld. Advocate for the applicants as referred to above as well as the objections raised by the Revenue. It is really intriguing that when the application was filed on 28th April, 2006 and the applicant has taken it as a plea before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.3 Though the applications have been filed under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, yet in the body of the application, 2 show cause notices issued by the Central Excise authority only have been cited. 4.4 It is observed that the total duty amount involved in the 2 SCNs issued by Central Excise is Rs. 1,46,62,178/ but the applicant admits only an amount of Rs. 41,92,651/- without giving any basis thereof whatsoever in the body of the application. On examining the submissions made by the applicant the Bench finds that the applicant has not been able to satisfy and explain the substantial difference between the amount demanded and the amount admitted. The amount demanded by the Revenue is on the basis of the duty involved on the impugned goods which the applicant obtained for the ostensible purpose of exports without paying the duty and therefore in the normal course the entire duty is liable to be paid. 4.5 Further it is also seen that the applicant obtained large number of import licences under the DEP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
