Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2006 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 374 - CESTAT, BANGALOREDemand of duty and interest - Confiscation of goods - capital goods - imported equipments under the EPCG scheme availing benefit of Customs Notification No. 27/97-Cus. - HELD THAT:- We do not accept the contention of the ld Advocate that the demand is time-barred in view of condition 3 of the said notification. We agree with the adjudicating authority that when there is no limitation prescribed under the notification, provision u/s 28 cannot be read into the prescribed limitation. Therefore, we uphold the demand of duty and interest in the impugned order. The adjudicating authority has already appropriated an amount of Rs. 4,68,265/- by enforcing the Bank Guarantee on 18-10-2002 and realized Rs. 8,28,215/- during the course of investigation. The appellant is liable to pay the interest. Once the appellants pay the duty and interest, the goods will be out of the ambit of the said notification and they cannot be held liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act as held by this Tribunal in Steel Authority of India v. CCE [2005 (1) TMI 231 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. When the goods are not liable for confiscation, there is no question of redemption fine and penalty. Thus, we do not find it necessary to go into the allegation of installing the machinery in different premises. Hence the penalties imposed cannot be sustained. In fine, we uphold the Order-in-Original to the extent of confirmation of duty foregone along with interest. The appellants should pay forthwith the interest liability on them failing which the Revenue is free to initiate any further proceedings in the matter. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
|