9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector Shri Anil Kumar Singh and Shri V.S. Rao, Chief Manager (F & A). The remaining one Appeal No. C/874/2010 has been filed by the revenue. The brief facts of the case are that M/s APCO had imported one "Asphalt Hot Mix Plant" through Mumbai port vide Bills of Entry No. 676500 dated 19.05.2006. They availed conditional duty exemption under Sr. No.230 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The said Sr. No. under exemption notification is as under : Table Sr.No. Chapter or heading or subheading No. Description of goods Standard rate Additional duty rate Condition No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 230 84 or any other chapter Goods specified in List 18 required for construction of roads Nil Nil 40 ANNEXURE Condition No. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), or an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer of the National Highways Authority of India, to the effect that the imported goods are required for construction of roads in India. 2. The Appellant, in order to avail such exemption produced acceptance letter from the Superintendent Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Lucknow stating that the appellant's bids for construction and maintenance of PMGSY Road in Raibareli and Barabanki district in the state of Uttar Pradesh has been accepted. They also submitted a copy of contract bond dated 31.03.2005 from Executive Engineer, Construction division No.2, LNV, Faridabad wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was handed over to appellants for safe custody. Penalty was also proposed against the Managing Director of the Company Shri Anil Singh, V. S. Rao Chief Manager (F & A), Santosh Kumar Singh Dy. Project Manager and Ram Gopal Rana Sr. project Manager. 3. Vide impugned order dated 30.03.2010 the demands and penalties against all the Appellants were ordered. Hence the three appeals by M/s Apco, Shri Anil Kumar Singh and Shri V.S. Rao. The revenue is also aggrieved with the impugned order to the extent that the penalty under section 114A has not been ordered to be imposed upon the interest on demand arising due to confirmation of demand against M/s Apco. 4. Ld. Counsel Shri Anil Mishra appearing for the Appellants submits that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. She relies upon judgments in case of: (i) Patel Engineering Ltd V/s C.C (IMPORT) Mumbai- 2013 (295) ELT.243 (Tri.Mumbai). (ii) Patel Engineering Ltd V/s Commissioner-2016 (338) ELT A35(SC). (iii) Rajhoo Barot V/s CC, Mumbai - 2017 (348) ELT562 (Tri.Mumbai). (iv) Gammon India Ltd V/S CC,MUMBAI -2011 (269) ELT 289 (SC). (v) Bombay Hospital Trust V/s. Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Mumbai - 2006 (201) ELT.555 (Bom). (vi) Grant Medical Foundation V/s. Commissioner -2015 (315) ELT.A26 (SC). 6. In case of appeal filed by the revenue she submits that the penalty under section 114A should also have been imposed upon interest on demand. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the Appellant M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication were not complied with and from the facts of the case it is very clear that the same were never intended to be complied with, we hold that the impugned order confirming demand, penalties and confiscation of goods has been rightly passed. We also find that the officers had handed over the plant for safe custody after seizure and the same could not have been used without permission from the department. Having violated the conditions of Section 110 safe keeping by using the plant even after seizure makes the Appellant liable for penalty under Section 117 of C.A.1962. Further we find that Shri Anil Singh, Managing Director was fully aware about the benefits likely to accrue by availing ineligible notification and use of machine and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
