9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late for the extension, their argument that they could not re-export due to late permission appears fallacious. It is clear that there was a deliberate intent to take wrongful advantage of N/N. 158/95-Customs dt. 14.11.1995. Therefore, the conclusion that follows is that the appellant never intended to re-export the goods and just wanted to divert the goods, which is not the purpose for which the Notification has granted exemption. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant mis-utilized the provisions of the said Notification - confiscation upheld. The imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of personal penalty are justified - having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2011, but they failed to re-export the goods within this extended period also. The Anti-Smuggling staff of the Department visited the factory of the appellant on 24.02.2012 and conducted search of the factory but the impugned goods could not be recovered. A statement of Sh. Vijay Mahendra, Sr. Manager was recorded on 24.02.2012 in which he stated that they had disposed off the said consignment in the domestic market, but they were not in a position to correlate the same with their domestic sale invoices as they were not mentioning batch no. on their sale invoices. Thereafter, the appellant vide their letter dt. 12.03.2012 informed the Department that they could not complete export obligations of the said re-export bond and have deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to condition (d) of the Notification No. 158/95-Customs dt. 14.11.1995 and contended that in terms of the said condition they have paid the differential duty. He relied upon the following case laws:- (i) FAL Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai 2003 (159) ELT 215 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Philips (India) Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai 2001 (137) ELT 697 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Meirs Pharma (India) Pvt Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai 2004 (167) ELT 53 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) Touch Stone Mining vs. CC, New Delhi 2004 (163) ELT 398 (Tri.-Delhi) (v) Maruti Udyog Limited vs. CC, Kandla 2001 (132) ELT 340 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vi) Taurus Novelties Ltd. vs. CC, Bangalore 2004 (173) ELT 100 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant. I find that the appellant had imported the impugned goods and had signed a re-export bond to reexport the goods within six months but the same was not done. After nine months, they applied for extension of the period of export for more six months, which was granted to them on 10.03.2011. Since they had themselves applied late for the extension, their argument that they could not re-export due to late permission appears fallacious. Admittedly, the goods were not found in the factory on 24.02.2012. It is clear from statement of Sh. Vijay Mahendra that the appellant had already disposed off the goods when the officers visited the factory on 24.02.2012. On being asked by the bench, the Ld. Advocate has not been able to specify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wraps. They have not come out with any plausible explanation as to why the goods were not exported. Even the date of clearance of goods is not informed by the appellant and there was no effort to inform the Department. The diversion was discovered only when the Department searched their factory. Hence, the ratio of these judgments is not applicable to the facts of this case. 7.2 The appellant have also relied upon the judgment of Maruti Udyog Limited (supra). In the said case, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited was liable to pay duty within a period of 30 days from the close of financial year. Since they had paid the duty amount within 30 days from the close of financial year, the Tribunal held that there was no breach of exemption. Hence, the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
