9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department regarding the violation of the conditions of Exemption Notification 3/89-Cus., dated 9-1-1989 under which the goods were imported by the appellants free of customs duty, is contradictory as in the show cause notice it has been alleged that the exemption under this Notification was not available to the appellants at the time of import of the goods and even the Commissioner in the impugned order has also so observed, whereas on the other hand, the Commissioner has imposed the penalty by holding that the appellants had committed violation of the terms of the above said Notification by allowing the commercial use of the goods to the Department of Telecommunication (in short DOT). He has also contended that inspite of alleging in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins undisputed that since validation and testing of the imported equipment was not completed by the DOT, the same could not be re-exported by the appellants within six months of the import. The Customs authorities when sought to enforce the bank guarantee, the appellants filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay for restraining the Customs authorities from enforcing the bank guarantee on the ground that the re-export as per the terms of the exemption Notification has to be made within six months only from the date of official closure of the event and that since the imported equipments were still, in the possession of the Government of India, Department of Telecommunication for testing the closure of the event cannot said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable period. 6. Apart from this, the stand taken up by the Department is also contradictory. In the show cause notice it had been alleged that the exemption from payment of duty under Notification 3/89-Cus. was not available to the appellants and even the learned Commissioner in the impugned order has also so observed. But strangely enough no duty demand has been confirmed by the Commissioner against the appellants on that ground. In the absence of confirmation of any duty for having wrongly availed the benefit of the above said exemption Notification, no penalty could be imposed on the appellants. 7. The plea of the Department that the appellants had violated the terms and the conditions of the exemption Notification and for that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipments were given to the DOT only for testing and validation purposes. No amount by way of lease or rent or reward has been received by the appellants from the DOT. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, it could not be concluded by the learned Commissioner that the appellants allowed the commercial use of the equipments, and thereby violated the conditions of the exemption Notification in question. 8. The goods had already been re-exported as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. When no duty demand has also been confirmed against the appellants for having violated any condition of the above said exemption Notification, it could not be concluded as done by the learned Commissioner, that the goods were liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
