9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 is not warranted in this case. However, despite giving this finding, he has not passed any order in Para 50 in respect of proposal for demand of interest made in the show cause notice. It is incumbent on the Commissioner to pass an order on each and every proposal made in the show cause notice and he cannot be silent in the operating portion of the order on any of the proposal made in the show cause notice. Therefore, on this count also, there is a clear error in the order. Since there are contrary findings on imposition of penalty under Section 112 and there is error inasmuch as no order was passed on the interest, the matter needs to be remanded for passing a fresh order only on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 49 of the impugned order. He submits that as per these findings, the appellant are not liable for penalty and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner did not impose penalty on the appellant. As regards interest, he invited my attention to Para 48 wherein the Commissioner has given the reasoning why the interest is not chargeable in the facts of this case. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. I find that as regards the penalty not imposed by the Commissioner, in clause (iv) and (v) of operating portion of the order in Para 50, the relevant findings of the Commissioner in Para 47, 49 (a) (b) and (e) are reproduced below:- 47 . They further argued that no penalty should generally be imposed when the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid seized goods backed by Bank Guarantee of ₹ 5,93,380/- to the said 100% EOU with the direction of due accounting and clearance thereof in the relevant records. This implies that the appropriate duty involved on the captioned goods has already been paid well before issue of Show Cause Notice. Moreover, I find that, at the time of personal hearing held on 27.05.2004, Shri K. C. Rana, C.A. appeared on behalf of the unit and submitted that as per Apex Court Judgement in case of Commissioner vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - reported in - 2004(163) ELT A 53(SC), no penalty is imposable on the unit as duty has been paid before issuing the Show Cause Notice, He requested for taking a lenient view. Keeping these facts in mind, I find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /97-Cus dated 03.06.1997 read with the provisions of Sections 71 of Customs Act, 1962. This implies that Shri Rakesh Gajanand Kansal, was the person who was involved in relation to the goods under seizure had acted, in a manner commission or omission of which acts had rendered the goods under seizure liable to confiscation under Section 111, was liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. (c) to (d) . (e) Shri Sanjay Ramvilas Gupta was the person, who had acted as Commission Agent/Broker for the aforesaid ECU and was the person, who in relation to the said goods had abetted the doing or omissions under the provision of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 was liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been paid by the unit on 16.08.2002 and 17.08.2002 as discussed hereinabove. Thus, the duty payment has been voluntarily paid within a short span of time and before the issuance of Show Cause Notice. The provisions of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 stipulate about the interest on delayed payment of duty in special cases. On referring the same and looking to the facts of the case including payment of duty involved in the captioned goods, the proposal for recovery of interest under Section 23AB of the Customs Act, 1962 is not warranted in this case. 6. As per above findings of the Commissioner, he concluded that recovery of interest under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 is not warranted in this case. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
