9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of customs duty foregone - case remanded back to the original authority for quantification of interest which the appellant would be liable to pay. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/20467/2017-SM; C/21805/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20493-20494/2019 - Dated:- 24-6-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant - Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Respondent - Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner(AR) ORDER Appellants have filed these two appeals against the impugned orders dt. 08/06/2016 and 09/08/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). both the appeals are based on same facts and issues and therefore both appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below:- Appeal No. OIA No. Duty Redemption Fine Penalty C/20467/2017 403/2016 dt. 08/06/2016 ₹ 22,14,833/- ₹ 5 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. 2.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.403/2016 dt. 08/06/2016 upheld the Order-in- Original with regard to confiscation, redemption fine, interest and penalty. As regards the Customs duty paid, the Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for examining veracity of the appellant s claim that the entire duty had been paid in full. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.403/2016, appellant filed appeal C/20467/2017 before this Tribunal. In the meantime, the Jt. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Bangalore, as per the direction of the Commissioner(Appeals) passed Order-in-Original No.1/2017 dt. 04/01/2017 and confirmed that the appellants have to discharge the outstanding duty liability of ₹ 2,41,794/-. But the adjudicating authority had confirmed the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty and the appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner(Appeals) in appeal No.46/2017 and the Commissioner(Appeals) has passed the Order-in- Appeal No.298/2018 confirming the order of the lower authority. against which, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent closure of factory were due to reason beyond the control of the appellant. In these circumstances, the learned counsel pleaded that there is no justification for confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine in liew thereof in terms of Section 125. Since the imported goods are not liable for confiscation and there was no mala fide intention in not fulfilling the export obligation, the penalty is also not imposable under Section 112(a) of the Act. For this submission, appellant relied upon the following decisions:- i. Taurus Novelties Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore [2004(173) ELT 100 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. FAL Industries Vs. Commissioner [2003(159) ELT 215 (Tri. Chennai)] iii. Age of Englightenment Publications Vs. CC (Air Cargo), Delhi [2017(357) ELT 632 (T)] iv. Metropolis Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2003(154) ELT (Tri. Ko.)] v. Philips (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2001(137) ELT 697 (Tri.)] vi. Meirs Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai [2004(167) ELT 53 (Tri. Chennai)] 3.2. He also referred to the Public Notice No.22 (RE-2013)/2009-14 dt. 12/08/2013 which provides that in all pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were deposited by TR-6 Challan on 30-11-2000. The same has been appropriated in the impugned order. The Show Cause Notice alleging violation of the Notification under Section 124 of Customs Act was issued on 15-1-2001. In terms of the adjudication order, the machineries were confiscated and granted redemption under fine of ₹ 20,00,000/- besides a penalty on the Company of ₹ 20,00,000/- and penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- each on the Managing Director and the Executive Director. The question in this appeal is as to whether the goods can be confiscated and redemption fine imposed besides penalties and interest. In a like situation, the Tribunal, in the citations referred to by the Counsel, has held that confiscation cannot be ordered in a circumstance when the export obligation became an impossibility. Further it has been held that when the Bank Guarantee has been realized before the issue of Show Cause Notice, then in such a circumstance, the redemption fine, penalty and interest is not imposable. We have perused these judgments and find that the appellants prayer for setting aside the redemption fine, penalty and interest, in terms of these judgments, is justified. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
