9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demands raised on point No. 1, to the extent they are for the period prior to 11.05.2001, are set aside and for the period post 11.05.2001, demands are confirmed as provisions of section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 were amended to hold that any goods brought to any other place are liable to Central Excise Duty. - This is the law which has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NCC Blue Water Products Limited. [2010 (9) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India] Clearance of shrimp seed to non DTA - It is an admitted fact that shrimp seeds which were cleared by utilising such material was cleared in DTA - the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority as customs duty on the inputs is correct and in consonance to the law. Dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ND MR MADHU MOHAN DAMODAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Smt. B.V. Siva Naga Kumari, Commissioner(AR) for appellant 1. Smt. A.S.K. Sweta, Advocate for the Appellant s 2 3. [ Order per: M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)] 1. The following three appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. CEX - 06/2005 (Commr), dt. 12.12.2005: C/519/2006, E/227/2006, E/275/2006 2. Appeal No. E/227/2006 is filed by Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Limited against confirmation of demands raised by the adjudicating authority and penalties imposed. Appeal No. E/275/2006 is individually filed by Shri A.G. Subbarayan, AGM, Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Limited against personal penalty imposed on him. Appeal No. E/519/2006 is filed by Revenue against order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through various records, submits that as regards shrimp seeds cleared under DTA without requisite permission, the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of NCC Blue Water Products Limited [2010 (9) TMI 13)] would cover the issue in respect of clearances effected upto 11.05.2001, as post 11.05.2001 the notification got amended. As regards the demand for the period post 11.05.2001, they argue the same on limitation. It is her submission that in respect of the customs duty on imported raw materials used in the production of shrimp seed, the same does not stand scrutiny of law as the final products manufactured are non-excisable and customs duty paid for the purpose of manufacture of such exempted goods need to be equivalent to the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ividual, she submits that she would reiterate the findings and leaves the decision to the Bench. As regards Revenue s appeal, it is her submission that adjudicating authority was error in extending the depreciation to the capital goods which was not found. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that appeal No. E/275/2006 stands abated due to demise of the individual on 13.09.2006. We take responsible statement made by Ld. Counsel on her words and hold that appeal abates. Appeal stands disposed of as abated. 8. As regards confirmation of demands raised against Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Limited, we find that in respect of clearances of prawns to DTA, without payment of applicable d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h material was clear ed in DTA. We find that the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority as customs duty on the inputs is correct and in consonance to the law and we do not find any reason to interfere in such a reasoned order on this point. 10. As regards the issue of demand of customs duty on the capital goods not found in the factory premises, we are unable to accept the arguments put forth by Ld. Counsel as there is nothing on record to show that the said goods were stolen or washed away during flood. In the absence of any evidence, we are of the view that the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority needs to be upheld. At this juncture, Revenue s appeal for enhancing the said demands on the ground that depreciation gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation is very reasonable and no interference is called for in such an order. 13. As regards penalty of ₹ 10.00 lakhs imposed on appellant herein, we find that the said penalty seems to be excessive considering the fact that confirmation of demand of all the three points is approximately ₹ 17.00 lakhs. Keeping in mind the distress faced by appellant during the period in question, we hold that interest of justice would be met if the penalty is reduced to ₹ 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only). Subject to this modification, the penalty imposed on Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Limited is upheld. 14. All the appeals are dis posed of as indicated herein above. ( Operative portion of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
