9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined as per Order-in-Original CAO No. 07/2014/CAC/CC(I)AB/ Gr.VB dated 24.02.2014 of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai. In the said order, the said barge was confiscated and offered for redemption fine of Rs. 3.5 crore under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were also imposed in the said order. The applicant paid the duty as per the said order. The appellant challenged the said order before Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order No. S/708-709/14/CSTB/C-I dated 15.7.2014 directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs towards penalty and stayed the recovery of remaining dues. The applicants have not exercised the option of redemption given in the adjudication order. 2. By this miscellaneous applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the Revenue resulted the miscellaneous application. Learned AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad - 2005 (180) ELT 367 (Tri-Mum). He argued that in the said case, the Tribunal had refused stay application in case of redemption fine under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that Section129E of the Customs Act, 1962, does not deal with this situation and, therefore, no relief under Section 35F can be granted. However, it is seen that the applicants are seeking the directions under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Earlier in similar circumstances, in the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 granted the permission for taking the vessel out side India on the condition of execution of bank guarantee of another Rs. 3 crores in favour of Commisisoner of Customs(Import), New Custom House, Mumbai to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. Considering the reasons satisfactory and pre-deposit of Rs. 6.52 crores and bank guarantee 8.20 crores lying with the Revenue, we allow the applicant to take the vessel out side India for deployment for completion of work order for period of six months subject to condition that the applicant executes bank guarantee of Rs. 3 crores in favour of the Commissioner of Customs(Import), New Custom House, Mumbai. The applicants b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o execution of bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. 6. It would appear that, in the past, the vessel had been taken out for dry dock and repairs which were considered essential to avoid degeneration of the asset. Accordingly, bank guarantee, adduced as security, was restricted to Rs. 60,00,000/-. However, when it was taken out for commercial purpose, bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was directed to be executed. We also observe that in a similar application filed for a temporary release of another of their vessels Seamec II, this Tribunal, vide order no. M/4450/15/CB dated 20th August 2015, allowed such deployment outside for a period of six months subject to execution of bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 12,00,00,000/-, the interest of justice will be advanced by allowing the MV Seamec III to be taken out for commercial purpose and dry docking for a period of six months upon execution of bank guarantee of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- in favour of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and bond for value of the vessel. 4.2 The applicants have also availed this relief earlier. The question which needs consideration is if it can continue till the case is decided. The asset has been confiscated and has been offered for redemption on payment of redemption fine. The same has been released on execution of bond and a bank guarantee. In these circumstances can the appellant continue to use the provisionally released asset without executing option of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. Thus, we permit the appellant to take the vessel out of Indian Territorial waters for a period of 24 months for execution of the Time Charter Contract they have entered into with M/s Middle East Marine LLC subject to the condition that the appellant shall file an undertaking before the Authority stating the purpose of taking out of the vessel and further undertake to bring back the same within a period of 24 months from the date of release of the vessel. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of. The applicants are before tribunal again seeking the same benefit. From the sequence it appears that they are enjoying the benefits of ship without getting the same released on payment of redemption fine. Since filing of appeal the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
