2007 (8) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed against Orders-in-Appeal Nos. C-Cus. 263 to 267/2005 dated 30-3-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Shri N. Anand, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is seen that the appellants imported Silk free of duty under the Advance Licensing Scheme with the condition f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue for waiving the show cause notice and hearing. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed Orders-in-Original in September 2004. The appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the orders of the lower authority. The appellant is highly aggrieved over the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and has come before this Tribunal for relief. 5. The appellant ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) cannot be sustained. 5.2 On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the appellants imported goods free of duty under Advance Licensing Scheme in terms of the Customs Notification 30/97-Cus., which has been mentioned in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. In the last paragraph, it is said that the fact that the goods in the pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of the conditions of the said notification, no illegality has been committed by Revenue. Once the dues have been realized, there is no question of further fulfilling the conditions of the Notification. In view of the case-laws decided by this Bench, the redemption fine and penalty are not sustainable because by invoking the bank guarantee, the duty has already been recovered. Whatever the diff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n paid by the appellant, there is no question of invoking the non-fulfilment of post-import condition for imposition of fine and penalty. The following case-laws support the view. (i) Steel Authority of India Limited v. CC, Visakhapatnam - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.- Bang.); (ii) Rajyalakshmi Labs Ltd. v. CC & CE, Hyderabad-II - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Bang.) In view of the above observati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X