9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport obligation, the contention of the Revenue that the respondents are liable to pay duty as well as penalty cannot sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/200/2010 - Final Order No. 40435 / 2018 - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Appellant Shri S. Krishnanandh, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The respondent had obtained nine advance licenses under DEEC scheme during the period from November 1992 to July 1995 as per which the respondent-company was allowed duty free import of Cocoa Beans and FPK Oil in terms of Customs Notification No.204/92 and 80/1995 with an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing penalty. The Commissioner adjudicated the SCN and vide OIO dt. 23.12.2009 confirmed the demand of duty, interest and appropriated the duty and interest already paid by the appellant. Penalties were also imposed. Against this order, the respondents and the Managing Director, Shri Bhadrinarayana on whom separate penalty was imposed filed appeals before the Tribunal. Vide common Final Order No.742, 743/2009 dt. 18.06.2009, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai with the direction to decide the same afresh in the light of the communication received in December 2008 and January 2009 from the officers of JDGFT and also in the light of EODCs granted by JDGFT after extending reasonable opport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid the duty on one of the diverted duty free imported raw materials the contravention of conditions of the notification is clearly established. The adjudicating authority therefore has erred in not imposing penalty on the respondent. It is also argued by Ld. A.R that the EODC was issued after issuance of the SCN and therefore the respondent having not fulfilled the export obligation are liable to pay duty amount and interest proposed in the SCN. 4. The ld. counsel Shri S. Krishnanandh appearing for the respondents supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that JDGFT having issued certificate for fulfilment of export obligation, the department cannot traverse beyond teh same and demand duty. Further, the Tribunal had rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. A.R that respondents have violated the condition of the notification and that therefore Section 111 (o) of Customs Act, 1962 is attracted and thereby respondent as well as the M.D. is liable to pay penalty is without any legal basis. The Commissioner in the first round of litigation had not imposed any penalty on the respondent-company who had imposed penalty only on the Managing Director of the respondent-company. Department did not challenge the said order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside the penalty imposed on the M.D. and had remanded the appeal filed by the respondent-company. On such circumstances, the argument of the Ld. A.R that the Commissioner ought to have confirmed duty as well as imposed penalty does not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
