Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (5) TMI 222 - CESTAT, MUMBAIConfiscation - Import - Cosmetics and toiletteries - Penalty - HELD THAT:- Imports as arrived in the finding under Sections 111(a) and 111(d) cannot be confiscated, as the order travels beyond the notice issued. Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation cannot be upheld as ordered. Very strangely, the ld. Commissioner, has not arrived at any order of confiscation by indicating any provision of the Customs Act, 1962 in the order portion, nor offered any redemption fine which was to be offered. We therefore cannot uphold the liability to confiscation or order to confiscate. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants. The order portion imposes the same, under Sections 111(a) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. We find no provision for a penalty which could be imposed under the provisions of these sections of the Customs Act, 1962 as ordered by the ld. Commissioner. The same are therefore to be set aside, as ordered, since they have been arrived without application of mind. We find that all 'manufacture' cannot be judged with reference to Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Infact the board vide its orders/circulars has held and ordered the field staff, that a broader view is called for in respect of the interpretation of the provisions of Notification 1/95-C.E. and the exemption may not be restricted only to cases where 'manufacture' u/s 2(f) of Central Excise Act is involved". This view of interpretation has been adopted by the Tribunal in a Catena of decisions. The appellants had raised this ground and the permissions specially granted by the Development Commissioner, we cannot ignore the same, as nothing contrary shown. We would therefore find no reason to conclude that the imports were not to be subjected to or are not subjected to manufacture and are thus imports of Complete Consumer Goods, not permissible to be imported. The process (A) and (B) and (C) (supra) would be covered under the concept of manufacture, as there is no finding that the goods were marketable de hor that all or any one of these process; the bland allegations of deodorant cans to be finished goods would not be sufficient to hold so. The present proceedings of duty demands and confiscation are not being upheld, there is no case or cause for any impediments to such imports if a penalty as arrived. Thus, the order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
|