9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 968/2/11/00 dated 13.6.2005 by the Office of JDGFT, Bangalore for import of capital goods as specified in the Annexure to the said license at the concessional rate of duty with an export obligation of export of Hanger Hooks, Sheet Metal Components to GCA countries and realize the export proceeds in freely convertible foreign currency subject to the conditions laid down in Chapter 5 of the EXIM Policy and Procedures 2002-2007. Further, the appellant had executed EPCG bond bearing No.200501258 dated 10.8.2015 before the Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Bangalore for an amount of Rs. 16,27,644/- being the duty foregone on the goods sought to be imported pursuant to the said license read with Notification No.97/2004-Cus. dated 17.9.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd full duty plus interest as applicable was demanded from the firm and also imposed penalty of Rs. 29,59,352/-. He further submitted that the said order of the Asst. Director General of Foreign Trade takes care of the revenue interest and any continuance of the proceedings by the Customs Department separately, in furtherance of the same revenue interest of safeguarding duty superfluous and is legally not admissible. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Sheshank Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI: 1996 (88) ELT 626 (SC) relied upon by the adjudicating authority is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because that decision of the apex court is applicable if the revenue interest is not legally firmed up by DGFT o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proceedings by the customs department is not warranted in this case. Further, demanding the duty foregone and also imposing the penalties by the customs department in spite of the fact that for the same offence, the ADGFT has already passed the order dated 7.11.2016 amounts to double jeopardy which is not permissible in law. The appellant has also relied upon the decision in the case of Sarala Performance Fibers vs. CCE, Vapi: 2010 (253) ELT 203 wherein it has been observed that the Foreign Trade Policy, Central Excise Law and Customs Law and Notification thereon forms an integrated scheme of indirect taxation, proceedings concluded by DGFT may be considered and present proceedings to be dropped. In view of the above discussion, I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
