Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 307 - CESTAT MUMBAICancellation of bond - Misuse of Benefit of concessional rate of duty - import of Crude Palm Stearin for Manufacture of Excisable Goods - N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 - allegation is that appellant had misused the facility granted them to them in terms of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 - whether Assistant Commissioner was correct in canceling the bond/undertaking executed by the appellants in terms of Rule 4 of the above Rules? HELD THAT:- The order of cancelation of the bond, would imply what – do revenue authorities intend to discharge the bond in respect of the goods imported by the appellant prior to its cancellation. The bond is for end usage of the goods. In any case the imports are not made against the bond, but are in terms of the application made by the importer and countersigned by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner with whom the bond for end usage has been executed - Assistant Commissioner could have at any time refused to countersign the application if he was having doubt in respect imported goods or their end usage in manufacture of the finished goods. Can on the strength of this bond appellant make an application to the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise for counter signature for future imports? - HELD THAT:- On the date today any order passed by us in this appeal cannot be of any relevance for future imports, nor for the past imports that have been made by the appellants. If for contravention of end use conditions in respect of the goods imported on the basis of the certificate countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise are to be initiated then they will have to be in terms of the Rule 8 of the above referred rules, or any proceedings in respect of the short payment of duty at the time of clearance of goods are to be initiated then the same can be only in terms o Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the proceedings have to be independent of the bond executed - Hence on the date the entire proceedings in this appeal have become an exercise in futility both for the appellant and revenue. Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
|