9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with entry No.2 of the eighth schedule . When the respondents filed an appeal against this order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that if the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court since the dispute is in relation to the rate of duty leviable on the assessee in view of two different notifications . The Tribunal in its final order had categorically observed that there is no justification for holding the goods liable for confiscation as there was no willful non-compliance of the notification, the order of confiscation by the Commissioner is not justifiable when the remand order was purely for re-quantification of demand of duty. Therefore, confiscation of the goods along with the redemption fine set aside. Further regarding interest and penalty, this Tribunal had taken a clear view and held that there is no provision for interest at that relevant time and set aside the demand for interest. The adjudication authority ought to have followed the findings given by this Tribunal by quantifying the extent of duty without ordering confiscation of goods, imposing int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 160/1992-Cus dated 20.04.1992 should not be denied and the duty along with interest should not be demanded. During pendency of the above said proceedings, another SCN dated 06.02.2001 was issued by DRI, Chennai directing the appellant to show cause as to why the benefit of Customs Notification No. 160/1992-Cus dated 20.04.1992 should not be denied, as to why the machinery imported by appellant should not be confiscated and duty amounting to Rs.2,38,23,605/- foregone being the benefit extended under Notification No. 160/1992-Cus dated 20.04.1992 should not be demanded with interest @ 24% and penalty should not be imposed on appellant and its Managing Director under Section 112/114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Appellant challenged said demand on the ground that appellant fulfilled 60% export obligation and also submitted that due to financial constraint, appellant submitted objection before BIFR on 18.09.2000. The matter was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2002 and the Adjudication Authority confirmed demand of Rs.2,38,23,605/- with interest @ 24% and also imposed redemption fine and penalty. 3. Aggrieved by said order, appeal was filed before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order, present appeal is filed. 5. When the matter came up for hearing, Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is issued in gross violation of the remand order issued by this Tribunal. Learned Counsel further submits that this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of duty liability by taking into account the export obligation as already fulfilled and also the effective rate of Customs duty. Thus, Adjudication Authority ought to have quantify the duty liability of 40% against goods imported under License No. 3031914 dated 04.07.1994 as the appellant fulfilled export obligation to the extent of 60% and quantify the duty liability of 85% against goods imported under license No. 2183783 dated 04.01.1994 since appellant completed export obligation of 15%. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority acted grossly in excess of its jurisdiction to pass order of imposing penalty and interest as well as confirming confiscation and redemption fine without considering the Final Order of this Tribunal. Moreover, at the relevant time, there was no provision under Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the first round of litigation vide order in original 19/2002 dated 02.04.2002 the Commissioner at para 46 had taken on record the fact that the appellant had claimed deduction of duty for 60% of exports on behalf of M/s. A A Zippers and also Rs. 2 crores on behalf of M/s. Sajawat Industries had not been granted. With regard to the above claim of the appellant the Commissioner at Para 47 observed that deduction of duty for 60% of exports made on behalf of M/s. A A Zippers has not been granted, I find that there is no provision in the notification for giving any such benefit. Notification 160/92 dated 20.04.92 stipulates that the importer undertaking an export obligation equivalent to 4 times the CIF value of the capital goods over a period of five years shall import the goods at concessional rate of 15% . The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1315 1316/2006 dated 27.06.2006 on appeal against this order had clearly observed that the extent of export obligation fulfilled should be taken into consideration towards the duty liability in view of the amendment to the notification No.160/92 dated 20.04.92 with retrospective effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the notification was only to pay on demand an amount equal to the duty leviable on such capital goods but for the exemption . The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 also do not justify demanding interest. Section 28AA of the Act only applies where the duty demanded under Section 28 is not paid within three months from the date of the confirmation of the duty. Section 28AB will not be attracted in this case, the demand for duty not having arisen as a result of any of the factors specified in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 28. 11. The view regarding levy of interest is considered by this Tribunal in the matter of Fal Industries Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 524 (Tri.-Mad.) as under :- There was no provision in the 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. 12. Without discussing the relevant provisions of law which were violated by the appellant, imposition of penalty by the Commissioner is irregular since the Tribunal had already held that the appellant had not willfully violated the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
