Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 182 - CESTAT, MUMBAIEXIM - DEEC Scheme - Manufacturer of Asceptic packaging materials - Misdeclaration - Demand duty - Limitation - Confiscation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- Considering the plea on limitation, it is found, if ECOPLAST was mentioned as Supporting Manufacturers in the Advance Licences and was included as such and the fact that ECOPLAST was entitled to obtain Advance Licences and import Nucrel duty free, there would therefore be no case or cause for duty demands. The ingredients of 'mens rea' to invoke the larger period for duty demands is therefore missing and wilful suppression or misstatement cannot be established. Once the entire production emanating from Nucrel has been exported, at higher than value enhancement, provided the charge of the duty demands made by invoking larger period should not survive. The liability to confiscation u/s 111(o) cannot be upheld, since the imported item Nucrel has been established, that is not being contested, has been used in the goods exported, the provisions of the DEEC Scheme have been met. Confiscation therefore cannot be upheld. Thus, we do not propose to apply the "strict Interpretation of notification" ruling relied by the ld. DR. When duty demands, confiscation are not being upheld, and there is no cause or case for a penalty on any appellant herein. Hence, the order is set aside & appeals allowed.
|