9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms duty on execution of bond and security of Rs. 50.00 lacs. These capital goods were meant for setting up a manufacturing plant of coated and uncoated paper in India by the appellant. However, due to adverse economic condition and lower demand of paper, the said plant could not be set up. The goods are still lying in packed condition with the appellant at one of its godown and have not been transferred or disposed of. Provisional assessments for the above imports were finalized vide the Order-in-Original No. S37C(Misc.)-27/2012A(6) dated 20.03.2014 wherein the following has been held against the appellant: a) Differential duty liability of INR 94,23,839/- has been confirmed against the appellant; b) The said duty has to be paid with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for confiscation, since the actual user condition imposed at the time of import was not violated since the goods are still lying with the appellants in his possession. (iii) The goods were freely importable at the point of import and hence, the goods can be transferred to anybody else and there will be no violation of import policy. Accordingly, it was submitted that order for confiscation and imposition of penalty may be set aside. 5. Ld. DR for the department on the other hand justified the impugned order. He submitted that the goods were liable for confiscation for violation of conditions under which concessional rate of duty was availed by the appellant under the Project Import Regulations. He also submitted that second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent which were ordered at the time of import were finalized denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty. Accordingly, differential duty has been demanded and the same has also been paid by the appellant. 7. The dispute in this appeal is with reference to the order for confiscation as well as imposition of penalty and redemption fine. At the time of import, the second hand capital goods were allowed to be imported without any import license subject to the condition that it shall be used on actual user basis for the project for which the goods were imported. It is to be noted that the second hand capital goods were allowed for import without license conditionally. The investigation undertaken by the Revenue has concluded that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allowed only subject to actual user condition. We have already noted above that since the goods were never used for the purpose for which it was imported, the actual user condition has been violated. Consequently, we are of the view that the confiscation of the goods ordered by the Adjudicating Authority under section 111(o) ibid is to be upheld. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the fact that the goods were imported a long time ago in the year 1998-1999, we are of the view that redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 125 and 112(a) ibid are on the higher side. Accordingly, keeping in view the principle of equity, justice and good conscious, we reduce the redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
