9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of Rs. 3,56,40,782/-. The appellant submits that against export obligation, appellant exported goods having value of 60% of export obligation and for the remaining 40% export obligation, appellant applied for extension of time. However there was failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the export obligation for balance amount. Alleging that the failure on the part of the appellant to comply with export obligation is an attempt to evade customs duty, proceedings were initiated by DRI. 2. Thereafter SCN was issued on 17.01.2001 directing the appellant to show cause as to why the benefit of 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. 160/199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved by said order, respondent filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2010 in CSTA NO.9/2007 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. As directed by this Tribunal, de novo adjudication proceeding were taken up, Adjudication Authority confirmed demand of duty, denied benefit of Notification No.160/1992-Cus dated 20.04.1992, interest @ 24%, also imposed penalty of Rs.35 lakhs on appellant and ordered confiscation of the machinery imported against EPCG Scheme. Adjudicating Authority allowed redemption of the goods by imposing redemption fine of Rs.75 lakhs under Section 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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e irregular, wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. (See: Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.). However, exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings." 8. Heard both the sides. We have gone through the Final order issued by this Tribunal 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 Zip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifiable when the remand order was purely for re-quantification of demand of duty. Therefore, we set aside confiscation of the goods along with the redemption fine. 10. 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. Moreover in the matter of M/s Philips (India) Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 697 (Tri.-Bom) it is held that as under:- "9. The notification itself does not provide for payment of interest by the importer. The undertaking by the importer referred to in condition (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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
