9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be sustained in view of the order of the Settlement Commission. ROM Application dismissed. - Miscellaneous Application (ROM)No. 76371/2017, In Appeal No. C/75923/2014, C/75650/2014 - MO/75055/2018 - Dated:- 6-2-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) None for the Applicant (s) Shri S.N. Mitra, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. The assessee filed this Misc. Application for Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No. FO/77318-77319/2017 dated 07.07.2017 passed by this Tribunal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Heard the I-da D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records. 3. For the proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if any. 2. Investigation proved that ACI did not have availed IEC No, which nullified its status as importer. Further investigation has proved that ACI was not at all registered with Central Excise Authority in terms of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 and hence they did not qualify for the concessional duty benefit under SL No. 30(A) of the notification No. 21/2002 Cus dated 01.03.2012, as sought to be availed in the import of the goods vide the bills of entry in question, Further, admission of liability of payment of the demanded duty, made by M/s JVL (noticee No. 1) before the Settlement Commission, clearly implies that the M/s ACI (Noticee No. 9) too had dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the notice of the department Thus, as an authorized CHA, the notice No. 10, had failed to discharge their responsibility properly legally in dealing with the subject goods which they knew were liable for confiscation under Section 11 1 (d), 111(m) and 111(0) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the CHA for their omission and commission are liable for penal action under section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as proposed in the show cause notice. 4 The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had no knowledge of the alleged evasion of duty. The Ld Counsel submitted compilation of the case laws. In the case of Kinship Agency Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava-she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.R.I Officers to issue show cause notice. 5. In the present case, I find that the assessee herein is the co-noticee before the Adjudicating Authority. The main noticee had already settled the case before the Ld. Settlement Commission and had not disputed the validity of the show cause notice. Therefore, the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty as raised in the show cause notice has already been merged with the order of the Ld. Settlement Commission in the case of main noticee. In my considered view, the issue of jurisdiction for issue of show cause notice by the D.R.I officer in the present case, cannot be sustained in view of the order of the Settlement Commission. Hence, I do not find any merit in the ROM application filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
