TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present contention raised by the appellants. When the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated 21.10.11 provides for recovery of statutory dues, which applies to the present case, we find no reason to hold that Tribunal's order is bad. The third contention relates to confiscation of goods, and it is pleaded that since the goods have been confiscated, the Revenue is safeguarded. However, we find from the records of the original authority that the goods have been removed in violation of the undertaking given and the conditions imposed in the various notifications. Therefore, in such a scenario, the appellants cannot be allowed to say that the interest of the Revenue is safeguarded. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. NOS. 3335 TO 3337 OF 2013 AND M.P. NOS. 1 OF 2013 (3 NOS.) - - - Dated:- 7-8-2014 - R. Sudhakar And G. M. Akbar Ali,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. N. Viswanathan For the Respondents : Ms. Mallika Srinivasan JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) The appellant in C.M.A. No.3335 of 2013 is a 100% export oriented company under the EHTP scheme for the manufacture and export of Copper Clad Laminates and pre pregs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chairman and Managing Directors and also the Director of the respondent company as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act and under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act. 4. The above show cause notice dated 5.12.05, was issued, inter alia contending that the appellant had violated post-import conditions of Notification No.13/81-Cus read with Notification No.53/97-Cus and Notification No.96/93-Cus dated 2.3.93 as amended and also the terms of the bond for contravention for having violated the customs and central excise duty to the extent indicated above. 5. After receipt of the above notice, it appears that by letter dated 4.1.06, the appellants sought for three months time to reply to the show cause notice and the matter stood thus. Thereafter, another notice was issued informing the appellant assessee about the three days fixed for hearing, viz., 26.10.09, 28.10.09 and 30.10.09. Since there was no response to this notice, the Commissioner proceeded to adjudicate the matter and held that there is clear violation of the various provisions of the Customs Act and Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... travention of the above notifications to be paid by PPL on the duty demanded in para (i) and para (ii) above. (vii) I impose a personal penalty of ₹ 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores only) on Shri V.Ramakrishnan, Chairman Managing Director of PPL under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944. (viii) I impose a personal penalty of ₹ 25,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores only) on Shri S.N. Rajan, Director of PPL under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Against the said order of the Commissioner, the appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal on 26.10.10 along with applications for waiver of pre-deposit. The said applications were considered by the Tribunal and the same were disposed of by order dated 8.4.13 made in Misc. Order No.40922 to 40924 of 2013 ordering pre-deposit of the entire customs and excise duty along with interest within six weeks and report compliance on 28.5.13. The order insofar as penalty imposed on the Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed in the typed set of papers. 11. Even at the outset, it may be mentioned that none of the grounds raised by the appellants merit consideration for the following reasons :- On the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, we find that the show cause notice was issued on 5.12.05 and the department clearly contends that they have sent the notices with four sets of documents to the company and the Directors of the company and the respondent company has responded by letter dated 4.1.06 seeking three months time to reply to the show cause notice on the ground that the factory has been raided by various Government departments. This letter, has not been produced by the appellants, though the said letter emanates from the appellants. Nevertheless, this letter does not complain about the non-receipt of the documents. The subsequent plea taken in the letter dated 30.10.09, addressed by the counsel for the appellants is an after-thought, as is evident from the recording of the order of the Tribunal that there is no material to show that the letter of the counsel dated 30.10.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontext, the learned counsel submits that the letter dated 30.10.2009 was sent by fax. But no evidence was placed before us. On the contrary, the learned AR has produced a copy of the letter dated 30.10.2009 received as 3.11.2009 in the Commissioner's office. It is noted that after receipt of the show cause notice, the applicant vide letter dated 4.1.2006 had not intimated the non-availability of the relied upon documents but they only requested for extension of time to file reply to the show-cause notice. However, they have not filed any reply to show-cause notice. We have also noticed that the jurisdictional Superintendent vide letter dated 6.4.2013 stated that in the factory location, there is no building or machinery belonging to the applicant but a housing project is being executed at that site by another company by name M/s.Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. We have also noticed that BIFR vide order dated 21.12.2011, recorded that the possession of the assets of applicant-company has been taken over by M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act and abated the reference in accordance with third proviso to Section 15 (1) of SICA. It has also observed that the secured c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
