9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 on payment of duty at concessional rate in terms of Customs Notification No. 160/92, dated 20-4-1992. Under the scheme, they were liable to export their products and discharge their export obligation in 5 years. The export products were 'timer' and 'timer movements'. Before expiry of the above period, the Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), upon an application submitted by the party, included plastic components also as export products in the relevant EPCG licence. The appellants exported plastic components. They also cleared plastic components to Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) in India and treated these clearances as 'deemed exports'. They claimed to have discharged their export obligation by combining the physical and deemed exports. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of differential duty of Rs. 4,87,297/- against the appellants in terms of condition no. (iii) of Customs Notification No. 160/92 ibid read with para 38 of the EXIM Policy 1992-97 in respect of capital goods imported by them under an EPCG licence and cleared under a bill of entry dated 29-7-1993. It also demanded interest on the above amount of duty @ 24% p.a. from 29-7-1993 to the date of payment of differential duty in terms of Para 105 of the Handbook of Procedures 1992-97. The authority also ordered confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act with option for redemption against payment of a fine of Rs. 1.2 lakhs. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,000/- on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 (137) E.L.T. 697 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. Though, in Appeal No. C/529/2001, the appellants had challenged the demand of duty also, the learned counsel did not press it. We have heard the learned SDR, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the show-cause notices in question were issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act for confiscating the capital goods (imported by the appellants and cleared in terms of Notification No. 160/92-Cus.) and imposing penalty on the importer. The lower authorities imposed fine in lieu of confiscation, under Section 125 and also imposed penalties under Section 112(a). Differential duty was demanded in terms of condition no. (iii) of the aforesaid not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs Act or in Notification No. 160/92-Cus. for levy of interest on any amount of duty recovered on the ground of breach of condition attached to the notification. In that case, though the demand of duty on capital goods imported by the party under EPCG scheme and cleared under the above notification was sustained, the importer was held not liable to pay interest thereon. Following this case law, we sustain the objection raised by the appellants in Appeal No. C/529/2001 against the demand of interest. 6. Coming to confiscation (with redemption fine) and penalties, we find that it is settled law that once the differential duty on capital goods imported and under EPCG scheme and cleared at concessional rate of duty under the above notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
