9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion - the customs duty adjust through the original order which has survived through the impugned Order-in-Appeal and penalty and interest ordered therein cannot be recovered from present appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. C/539/2011-CU[DB] - C/A/71018/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 21-2-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Jitin Singhal (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Mohd Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 8-9 CUS/MRT-II/2011 dated 31.05.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-II. 2. Brief facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Duty, under the said advance the said advance license No. 2910002997 dated 28/03/2002 under Notification No.48/99-Customs dated 29/04/1999 and not utilized for the specified purposes order to recover the same from M/s TVA and its partners namely Shri Manoj Sikka, Shri Achit Vij, Smt. Madhu Vij and Smt. Hema Sikka them in terms of the conditions of Exemption Notification No. 48/99-Cus. Dated 29/04/1999 and that of the Bond, and also in terms of Section 11, Section 12, Section 143 and Section 143A read with Section 25, Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I order to confiscate the aforesaid goods, viz. 77.733MT of Brass Scrap, having assessable value ₹ 39,13,607/- and involving Customs duty ₹ 19,88,113/- import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ten Lakh only) on Shri R.K. Gupta, CHA under Section 112, 114, 114A Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal where learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. On earlier occasion on 06.11.2017 the matter was heard in part and Interim Order No. 24/2017 dated 06.11.2017 was passed through which both the parties were directed to bring the facts on record whether duty and penalty as demanded which had survived through the process of appeal at the first stage have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is not signatory to the bond and through bond Shri Manoj Sikka has undertaken to pay customs duty in the event of non-fulfilment of export obligation. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, we find that the Original Authority has ordered recovery of customs duty of ₹ 19,88,113/- alongwith interest in terms of bond from Shri Manoj Sikka, the appellant, Smt. Madhu Vij and Smt. Hema Sikka. We also find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by Smt. Madhu Vij and the recovery was ordered in terms of the bond we further find that the appellant is not signatory to the bond and he has not bound himself to pay customs duty in the event of non-fulfilment of export obligation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
