9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned in the prayer clause as the Settlement Commission itself had directed refund of ₹ 26,13,923/- with interest and the said amount stands deposited. It shows non-application of mind on the part of the petitioners when they filed the present writ petition. - there is no prayer in the writ petition for enhancement of rate of interest or penalty etc.. The petitioners had opportunity and could have even moved an amendment application, but no steps have been taken. - Decided against Revenue. - W.P.(C) 6092/2008 and C.M. No. 16646 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Mr. Sanjiv Khanna And Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr.Satish Aggarwal and Mr.M.S.Chauhan, Advocates with Mr.Inderjit Singh, Inspector. For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue. 2. The petitioners do not dispute the factual position recorded by the Settlement Commission that the respondent no. 1 had not manufactured or sold PVC compound (Shoe Sole Grade). The petitioners case was/is that the raw material whether imported or procured locally for manufacture of PVC compound was sold by respondent no. 1 in the local market. The containers meant for export, when physically examined were found to contain Fly Ash and not PVC compound. 3. The respondent no. 1 has accepted their fault and guilt. The respondent No.1 have accordingly been directed by the Settlement Commission to pay ₹ 70,35,395/-, the breakup of which is as under:- (i) Customs Duty (Exemption Claimed On import of PVC resin) ₹ 34,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed that ₹ 26, 13,923/- should be deposited by the respondent No.1 and the said payment has been made. The affidavit of the petitioners admits and accepts that claim for the balance amount of ₹ 35,19,040/- was pending before Central Excise authorities but the same stands rejected in view of the order of Settlement Commission. 7. Noticing this affidavit, in the order dated 25.11.2011, it was recorded that if the respondent no. 1 had not manufactured the PVC compound (shoe sole grade) then no excise duty was payable by them. The prayers in the writ petition therefore do not have any merit. The petitioners were asked to clarify and the writ petition was adjourned to 14.02.2012. 8. As clarification was not forthcoming, Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected to pay interest @10% and penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed and no penalty has been imposed on co- applicants. We notice that there is no prayer in the writ petition for enhancement of rate of interest or penalty etc.. The petitioners had opportunity and could have even moved an amendment application, but no steps have been taken. 12. We have no doubt in our mind that respondent no. 1 is guilty of misdeclaration and does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence. They were directed and have paid ₹ 70,35,395/- with interest @10% plus a penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs. Penalty amount appears to be rather low but it would not be proper at this stage for the High Court to suomoto or on oral prayer enhance the penalty amount. The w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
