9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not call for interference with regard to levy of customs duty, excise duty and penalty imposed on the Company challenged in C.S.T.A. Nos. 2 3/2008. Therefore, we hold that the appeals are liable to be dismissed holding that re-framed substantial questions of law would not arise at all for the reason that the fact finding authority has recorded a finding of fact holding that the exempted company has contravened the terms and conditions of the exemption notification in not utilising the 100% exempted imported materials for manufacture of goods to export the same to the foreign countries and the said finding is concurred with by the appellate authorities. Therefore, we do not find any ground urged by the learned counsel Mr. Gururaj in this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 is concerned and in so far as appeal Nos. 3/2008 and 31/2007 are concerned the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the penalty imposed upon them u/sec. 112(b) of the Act, particularly in appeal No. 3/2008 for non-compliance with the terms and conditions of Exemption Notification granted in favour of the appellant-Company, who is an exporter with regard to importing of goods with exemption of payment of customs duty to facilitate it to use such Imported goods as raw materials for manufacture of the goods and export 100% of the same. The duty exempted imported goods were sold on payment to the appellant in C.S.T.A. No. 31/2007 and therefore imposed penalty upon them under Section 112(b) of the Act for non-compliance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is in violation of the exemption notification granted in favour of the appellant-company in Appeal No. 2/2008. The appellant in C.S.T.A. No. 31/2007 is the Director of the transferee company on whom the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act is levied. Assailing the correctness of the said findings they filed appeal straightaway to the Tribunal to CESTAT, urging various grounds, contending that the findings and reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the Notification dated 31-3-2003 with regard to 100% exemption of raw materials in favour of the Company in Appeal No. 2/ 2008, which company has re-supplied the goods from whom he has borrowed is the defence put forward by it, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both by the company and its C.E.O. by setting aside the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant in C.S.T.A. No. 31/2007 Shri Gururaj submits that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law for the reason that there is no knowledge for the appellant director regarding receipt of 100% exempted imported duty goods by the appellant in the first appeal for the purpose of exporting and using the same as raw material for manufacture of 100% export goods to export it to some foreign countries. In the absence of knowledge attributed to the appellant in the above appeal for receiving the imported 100% duty free goods or raw materials from the Company and the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in doing so on facts. Nonetheless, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference by this Court for the reason that the Assessing Authority and the first Appellate Authority have applied their mind consciously re-appreciated the facts and material evidence on record and recorded a finding of fact holding that there was a knowledge to the Director of the Company in Appeal No. 31/2007 by receiving 100% imported goods supplied by the appellant-Company in C.S.T.A. No. 2/2008 contravening the terms and conditions. Therefore, the question of law does not arise for consideration of this Court and requested to dismiss the appeals with costs. 6.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully examined the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company by selling in the open market, the said explanation is not accepted by the Assessing Authority who is the fact finding authority. The said finding of fact is confirmed by both the First Appellate Authority and Tribunal by recording valid and cogent reasons after re-appreciation of material evidence on record and with reference to the legal grounds urged in the appeal by the appellants in C.S.T.A. Nos. 2 3/2008. After careful perusal of the impugned common Judgment passed by the Tribunal we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal which does not call for interference with regard to levy of customs duty, excise duty and penalty imposed on the Company challenged in C.S.T.A. Nos. 2 3/2008. Therefore, we hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
