9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANGALORE] followed. The allegations in the show cause show cause notice and the conclusions in the impugned order are without solid foundation, without evidence and premised on presumptions and assumptions. Deand of duty, confiscation of consignments and imposition of penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/273/2006 & C/132/2007 - Final Order No. A/30661-30662/2016 - Dated:- 9-8-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(JudiciaI) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K. Dass, AR for the Respondent ORDER Both these appeals emanate from the same impugned order and therefore were heard together and are disposed by this common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be collected from them on account of the clearance of prawn seeds in the DTA during the period 1994-99, why the imported goods should not be confiscated for improper use and duty of ₹ 3,87,66,386/- should not be recovered; why the goods locally procured and valued at over ₹ 6 crores should not be confiscated under the provisions of Central Excise Act and why excise duty of ₹ 1,06,45,596/- should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Rules. 2.5 On adjudication vide order dated 03-01-2008 the adjudicating authority dropped the proposals for demand of duty on prawn seed, imported goods as well as indigenously procured goods. However, confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.4 Show cause notice demands duty on the prawn seed to an extent of ₹ 4,81,99,524/-. Therefore, there cannot be a presumption that show cause notice has demanded duty on the inputs used in the production of prawn seed also. Thus, the duty of ₹ 3,87,66,386/-demanded in para 10(ii) will be confined to below goods referred to in para 20(B) of the impugned order. 5.5 The original demand was for payment of customs duty on shrimp seed. When it was pointed out that shrimp is not a marketable commodity, that it is not fit for human consumption, that it does not fall under Chapter 3 of the Tariff schedule, the adjudicating authority dropped this proposal itself but instead demanded duty entirely on a new ground. When the demand noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions the learned AR Sri. R.K. Dass contended as under: i) The assessee has not produced evidence to the satisfaction of the department that the prawn seed removed by them into DTA belongs to the Hatchery of M/s Magunta Exports which they have taken on license agreement. ii) The assessee has not produced any evidence showing the cash flow details between these two units. iii) the assessee has not maintained and produced separate account for the Hatchery of M/s Magunta Exports. iv) The invoices pertaining to the seed sales were raised by M/s Balaji Biotech Ltd. Vagarru from their premises on their account without any mention in the invoice that the seed is manufactured in the hatchery of M/s Magunta exports. For these re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order has taken cognizance of the fact the Assessee has produced copies of invoices pertaining to DTA sales made from non EOU hatchery for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 along with copy of license agreement entered into with Magunta Exports. However the adjudicating authority has disregarded the same on account of small difference between the balance sheet figures and the invoice figures, which, in our view are negligible and within acceptable limits. The adjudicating authority has also ignored the submission of the Assessee during PH that they have submitted Daily sales List (DSL) signed by proper officer incharge of the coastal hatchery to indicate that the seeds were produced only in M/s Magunta Exports and they are also havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the judgment laid in similar issue in the case of Water Base Ltd Vs. C CE, Guntur 2006 (201)ELT 81 (Tri-Bang). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below: We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the order, relating to M/s. The Water Base Limited, the Commissioner has demanded customs duty on the imported inputs, raw materials, consumables, used in relation to prawn seeds cleared into DTA. However, all the SCNs demand customs duty on prawn seed themselves. While, what is demanded in the Order-in-Original is duty on inputs, raw materials, consumables which were imported in relation to the prawn seed cleared to DTA. Thus the impugned adjudication order is going beyond the scope of the SCN as ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
