9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been doubted by the department not shown to be factually incorrect. In such circumstances, the manner in which the respondent has been dealt with by the department right from the inception i.e. from the date of import is wholly unsustainable, unreasonable and arbitrary. Under the notification there was no power of confiscation. Furthermore, the notification does not provide for confiscation of the goods in the event the goods are not exported within the timeframe stipulated under the notification or the extended period thereof. Therefore, the question of confiscation of the goods also would not arise. The Tribunal was right in holding that the respondent was not liable for payment of any interest, till the payment of the duty as the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with interest as per the statutory provisions, is contrary to the provision of section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962? 3. We have heard Mr. Kaushik Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Alisha Das, learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The respondent was engaged in the project of raising and strengthening of Brahmaputra Duct for which they imported sand and water pump machinery and accessories on lease during the period April, 2009 to September, 2009. Respondent claimed benefit of Notification No. 27/2008-CUS, dated 1st March, 2008, by which if the goods were re-exported between three to six months from the date of import, the customs duty is required to be paid at 15% of the tariff rate. The Notification stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have made in the mind of the department is whether the assessee in deliberate violation of the conditions of notifications committed by the respondent. The respondent candidly admitted that they could not fulfil the export obligation due to circumstances which were beyond their control. This aspect has not been doubted by the department not shown to be factually incorrect. In such circumstances, the manner in which the respondent has been dealt with by the department right from the inception i.e. from the date of import is wholly unsustainable, unreasonable and arbitrary. Under the notification there was no power of confiscation. Furthermore, the notification does not provide for confiscation of the goods in the event the goods are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
