Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1051 - AT - CustomsFraudulent claim of export incentive schemes viz. DEPB, DEEC and rebate - Department's case is that these companies have claimed to have exported various chemicals, pesticides and dyes, however in fact there was no export of the declared chemicals/dyes/pesticides and the goods declared in the shipping bills have not been exported and in their place some unknown chemicals were exported. Held that:- At the time of hearing, the plea taken by the Ld. Counsels is that duty liability cannot be fixed jointly and severally on the exporters as well as the importers. - Therefore we order remand of these cases for fresh adjudication by the Commissioner for fixing the duty liability appropriately. Needless to say, the appellants will be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and the principles of natural justice will be followed. Confiscation and redemption - Held that:- it is a settled position in law that goods which are not available cannot be confiscated and redeemed. The Commissioner will no doubt consider this aspect legally. At this stage, we do not make any observation on the applicability of extended time period under Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act. However this matter shall also be considered by the Commissioner after fixing the duty liability. Imposition of penalties on the High Sea Sellers. - varying amounts of penalty imposed on the various high sea sellers depending on their role in availment of Cenvat Credit on the goods sold by them on high sea basis. - The contention of the counsels is that penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 as they have not dealt with excisable goods. - Held that:- the goods which are still on high seas cannot be held to be liable to confiscation in terms of Rule 25 above. It has not been shown, in terms of the above Rule that the High Sea Sellers have contravened any provisions of Central Excise Rules with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty when the goods are still on High seas. It cannot be held that because the goods will be diverted and not used by the companies after clearance from Customs, the offence already stands committed on the sale of the goods on High seas. - the question of imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise provisions on goods on high seas does not arise. Levy of penalties on the indigenous suppliers - Held that:- the supplier has certainly knowingly removed the excisable goods in contravention of the Rules. This act of theirs facilitated the fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit by the consignee. Therefore the indigenous suppliers are liable to penalty under Rule 26. We uphold the order of Commissioner imposing penalties on the indigenous suppliers. The penalties against appellant officers are also set aside.
|