9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and various penalties have been imposed on all the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the main appellant M/s Vector Ingot Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of gold bars of purity of 99.5% and above. The unit is located in the state of Uttarakhand at Haridwar. Therefore, they are availing exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.6.2003. The appellant imported two consignments of having the gross weight of the gold of 16.17290 and 12.85620 Kg. The goods were reached to the factory premises on 2nd December 2015 and on 3.12.2015 a truck bearing registration No.DL-ILR-7167 was intercepted at Jamalpur Tiraha, Haridwar which was carrying gold under transfer invoice No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of search in their factory, no other goods were found in their factory. It is his contention that whatever gold they import, immediately they converted into 99.5% purity and transferred to their head office. Therefore, there was no goods available in their factory. He further submitted that although at the time of visit, no proper records were available with them but they were maintaining proper records which were submitted later on and the same has been considered. In that circumstances, as there was no discrepancy in their operations, therefore, the differential duty cannot be demanded. Consequently, the goods are not liable for confiscation and no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has complied with the condition of the Notification No.12/2012. Therefore, the duty demand against the appellant is not sustainable. In view of the above observations, the demand of duty and interest are set aside. 8. We also take note of the fact that neither during the investigation nor at the time of transportation the goods, the appellants were carrying proper documents for transportation of the said goods. As the appellant is not maintaining the proper records of the imported goods including sl. number, date etc. and not maintaining the record of intended use of the said goods, in that circumstances, the goods are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the confiscation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
