9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be discharged by the importer is only requirement and there is no condition or requirement that adjudicating authority should confiscate the goods u/s 111(o) of the CA, 1962, nor there is any clause for imposition of penalty on the importer. The respondent has discharged the entire Customs duty having not met the conditions of notifications; on being pointed out by the Departmental Officer, if that be so appellant has fulfilled the mandate of notification by paying duty on being demanded - adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice for confiscation the goods and imposition of penalty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/10/07, C/CO/90/07 - A/86423-86424/17/CB - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not legal and correct. He would relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Unimark Remedies Ltd Vs CC [2016 TIOL-2969-HC-MUM-CUS] for the proposition that the goods are liable for confiscation if they are not fulfil the condition of exemption of notification and power of the Customs Department and that once goods are held liable for confiscation and penalty follows as corollary. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent submits that the entire issue is regarding the demand of Customs duty on certain goods imported and cleared without payment of Customs duty, subject to their end use and investigation initiated regarding non-production of consumption certificate by the importers and also failure to utilise th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority was correct is not imposing penalty and ordering for the confiscation. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Knitwear Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2007 (207) ELT 85 (Tri.-Bang.) ] which has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka [2012 (278) ELT 165 (Kar.)]. He also submits that the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of Hotel Surya Continental Vs Commissioner of Customs [2014 (314) ELT 564 (Tri.-Del.)] and Davangere Wire Rope Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore [2006 (196) ELT 445 (Tri.-Bang.)] has held the same. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Customs, as the case may be, to the effect that (a) the parts, or as the case may be, the spare parts shall be used for the manufacture or maintenance, as the case may be, of the specified medical equipment; (b) he shall, within three months or such extended period that the said Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner may allow, produce (i) in the case of parts, a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory manufacturing the specified medical equipment, to the effect that the parts have been used in the manufacture of the specified medical equipment; or (ii) in the case of spare par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that similar issue was considered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sun Knit Wear Pvt Ltd (supra) and has settled the law in as much that in paragraph no.5 their lordship held as under. 5. It is clear that the Notification No. 27/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997 as amended grants benefit to the assessee insofar as payment of customs duty is concerned. The condition precedent for availing the benefit is, it is required to import capital goods up to the threshold level of ₹ 1 Crore. If that condition is fulfilled, then, the notification is applicable and after availing the benefit of importing goods, they pay the duty. If it does not perform its export obligations, then, it can be said that he has violated the terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
