9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion notification and has knowingly violated the conditions - since the conditions of the notification 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, the impugned order confirming demand, penalties and confiscation of goods has been rightly passed. Penalty on Shri V. S. Rao, Chief Manager (F A) - Interest u/s 114A - Held that:- Shri V. S. Rao was only concerned with the taxation matter to the extent of availing benefit of exemption notification and was not concerned/ connected with the decision to use machine and his role in violation of condition is also not visible, he cannot be burdened with liability of penalty - the issue of penalty u/s 114A on interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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. Condition 40 If,- (a) the goods are imported by - (i) the Ministry of Surface Transport, or (ii) a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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 wherein the said appellant was mentioned as contractor for construction of Milkipur Amanganj lane length 17.5 kilometers in the state of U.P. In accordance with the condition they also executed a bond binding themselves that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 used for construction of road in any state or national highways and not necessarily at sites, contracts of which were presented before the Customs. The exemption is not site specific. The appellants as a sub-contractor of M/s Punj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Apco had imported the Hot mix plant under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No.230. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the plant was never utilized as provided under the conditions of the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 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 therefore in such case his complicity in deliberate violation of the condition of notification is apparent. However in case of Shri V. S. Rao, Chief Manager (F A), we find that he was only concerned with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
