9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been paid on its clearances to Domestic Tariff Area. Therefore, we do not find merit in the contention of the ld. Advocate for the appellant that duty is not payable on these MS barrels. However, we find force in the submission of the ld. Advocate to the extent that the Appellant are eligible to pay 25% of penalty subject to fulfilment of conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962, in view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in G.P. Presstress Concrete Works case (2012 (8) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) as such an option has not been extended to the Appellant by both the authorities below. - Appeal No. : E/921-922/2008 - ORDER No. A/10436-10437/2016 - Dated:- 19-5-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty free were inputs and not MS Barrels , therefore, clearance of the said MS Barrels later in Domestic Tariff Area, would not require any permission, being not covered under the Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003. Also, she has submitted that the demand of customs duty from them was erroneous. She has contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. West Coast Gases Limited - 2003 (155) ELT 11 (SC), there is no requirement for reversal of credit availed on packing materials when received along with cenvatable inputs. Hence, on this analogy, they were not required to pay duty on MS Barrels on its clearance to Domestic Tariff Area. She has further submitted that even though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to be paid on these barrels when cleared to DTA. Also, since the appellant failed to pay duty at the time of its clearance, therefore, penal provisions have been rightly invoked by the authorities. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that undisputedly the appellant had imported inputs duty free packed in MS barrels availing the benefit of Notification No.53/2003Cus. Dt.31.03.2003; but failed to pay appropriate duty on the MS Barrels when cleared to Domestic Tariff Area. The law is well settled now in this regard by the judgment of this Tribunal referred as above. Since the appellant has failed to establish that MS Barrels are not capable of further use/ repeated use, therefore, appropriate Customs duty ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
