9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these changes. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017, after obtaining permission of the Customs Officer and was completed on 08.07.2017. As there is no space in the customs area, the goods were directly transferred to appellant s premises as was the regular practice. The assessment of bill of entry was make on provisional basis on account of the valuation issued which was to be finalized after testing of goods. There was no mala fide involved in the instant case from the appellants. The entire procedure happened in supervision of the Customs Authorities. As soon as the appellant got to know about the changes in legislation they paid the duty and subsequently also paid the interest. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017 with the permission of customs officer. From the facts of the case it is apparent that what happened in the instant case was a matter of regular practice. It was not as if the revenue was not aware that goods cannot be stored in jetty and have to be directly transferred to the factory premises. It all happened with the concurrence of the revenue and under close supervision. The entire IGST and interest thereon stands paid by appellant. The proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.07.2017 with the permission from customs officer and was completed on 08.07.2017. 2.1 The appellant realized that IGST was not exempted at the time of import. On request made by the appellant. Vide letter dated 21 August, 2017,24 August, 2017, 29 August, 2017 on 24.08.2017 the proper officer recalled and re-assessed the bill of entry allowing payment of IGST. The IGST was paid by the appellant along with interest. Learned Counsel argued that the said action was done in terms of press release of the Government. On 28.08.2017 and 04.04.2018, the appellant paid applicable IGST and the interest thereon. On 30 January, 2020, the department granted out of charge. On 05.02.2020, final assessment of provisionally assessed bill of entry was done. As IGST and interest was already paid, no further payment of any duties was required at the time of finalization. The IGST paid was adjusted against the finalization and no demand was made under the 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2 On 29.06.2017 a SCN was issued to the Custodian (DHIL) Dahej Harbour Infrastructure Ltd., for allowing clearance of goods without getting out of charge order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not given evidence or fulfilling the pre-import condition of advance authorization. Learned Counsel pointed out that the advanced authorization has since being redeemed by the DGFT, which implies that they have fulfilled all the conditions of advanced authorization. 2.8 Learned Counsel further pointed out that they were entitled to the input credit of the entire IGST paid and therefore there could not have been any reason for evade payment of IGST. He relied on the following decisions for this purpose: Nuevera Wellness Ventures P Ltd Vs. C.C Mundra-2023 (10) TMI 964-CESTAT Ahmedabad 2.9 Learned Counsel further argued that the provisions of interest and penalty have not been imported for the purpose of levy of IGST under Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act. He relied on the following decision for this purpose: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. Union of India-2022 (10) TMI 212 Bombay High Court, affirmed by Supreme Court in 2023 (8) TMI 135-SC Bajaj Health Nutrition P Ltd Vs. CC, Chennai-2004 (166) ELT 189 2.10 Learned Counsel further argued that provisions of Section 111(J) are not applicable in the present case. He pointed out that the goods imported by appellants are neither dutia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently also paid the interest. The discharge of cargo commenced on 06.07.2017 with the permission of customs officer. 4.2 Independent proceedings initiated against Dahej Harbour and infrastructure Ltd for allowing clearance of cargo without getting out of charge order under Section 47 of the Customs Act 1962 read with Regulation 6(f) and 6(k) of handling of cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009, culminated vide Final Order No. A/10814/2019 dated 09.05.2019, in the said order following has been observed: 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the limited issue is involved that whether the appellant has violated their regulation 6(f) and 6(q) of Handling of Cargo in Custom Area Regulation 2009 and consequently whether they are liable for penalty in terms of regulation 12(8) of HCCAR 2009. For ease of reference, the Regulation 6(f) and 6(q) of HCCAR 2009 is reproduced below: (f) not permit goods to be removed from the customs area, or otherwise dealt with except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer; (q) abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued thereunder. Fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y appellant. The process of payment of IGST and interest was initiated by appellants themselves. In these circumstances initiating penal proceeding and invocation of extended period against the appellant is totally un-warranted. 4.4 In the instant case, the goods have been confiscated though the same was not available for confiscation. The goods were cleared in 2017 and the same must then consumed immediately thereafter in the factory of the appellant. The notice was issued in the year 202 seeking confiscation. The impugned order confiscates the goods and imposes redemption fine of Rs. 15 crore. The issue is very clear larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd- 2016 (333) ELT 395 has held as follows: 47. Further, learned Counsel pleaded that the fine is payable, if at all, only on redemption of goods. Here there is neither a seizure nor provisional release under bond and, hence, the question of payment of redemption fine either to release the goods or in terms of the bond does not arise. We find that there can be no redemption fine in the absence of any seizure or provisional release of such seizure goods under proper bond. In the present case in the absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
