9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e precedential value of the decision of the Tribunal is not derogated from. It is the facts and circumstances that should apply and we find no variance in the facts and circumstances therein and the present dispute. A breach of condition of import is not at par with failure to fulfill export obligation which the notification itself has rendered flexible enough to be regularized and that breach, such as the present, must inevitably lead to confiscation. The imposition of penalty is a natural consequence. Penalty on Director - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence of his role in deliberately utilizing the goods at a different location. It is also clear from the records that they had been advised that such utilization is within the scope of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, penalty of ₹ 22,71,520/- was imposed on M/s Prakash Roadlines Corporation Pvt Ltd under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- on Shri Vishnu Sureka, Director, leading to the present appeals. 2. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for appellants, that, of the duty confirmed, they had paid ₹ 5,00,000/- during investigation and that another ₹ 3,41,000/- was encashed from the bank guarantees. Learned Counsel submits that the demand for duty, by enforcement of the bond, executed in compliance of condition in the exemption notification without embargo of limitation, should not have been resorted to invoking of section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. He contends that the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been challenged. He contends that the decision of the Tribunal in re Sushant Minerals (P) Ltd and the facts and circumstances in the present appeal are on the same footing and is a valid precedent. He drew attention to notification no. 97/2004-Cus dated 17th September 2004 which lays down conditions; some of these are to be discharged at the threshold to entitle the importer to exemption from duties in excess of 5% ad valorem while others are continuing conditions on utilization of the said capital goods for fulfillment of export obligation which are performance-related and are to be complied with failing which the detrimental consequence will arise. 4. We find that the decision of the Tribunal in re Rajyalakshmi L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e eligibility for the exemption notification ceased to exist at the threshold. In these circumstances, the demand of differential duty will necessarily have to sustain. We take note that the appellant has not seriously resisted this recovery. The claim of the appellant is that the goods are not liable to confiscation. We have found that a breach of condition of import is not at par with failure to fulfill export obligation which the notification itself has rendered flexible enough to be regularized and that breach, such as the present, must inevitably lead to confiscation. The imposition of penalty is a natural consequence. Accordingly, we find no flaw in the order of the adjudicating authority in having confirmed the duty liability, confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
