|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 727 Records
-
2007 (4) TMI 585
Issues:
Appeals related to penalty imposition for delayed duty payment under the Compounded Levy Scheme.
Analysis:
The appeals involved a common issue of penalty imposition for delayed duty payment under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The original authority had imposed penalties equal to the outstanding amounts at the end of the due dates, which were later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to 10% of the original penalties. The appellant, a fabric processor, faced penalties for late payments in three separate cases. Each case involved a delay of one day in payment after the due dates, resulting in penalties imposed by the original authority, subsequently reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).
In the first case (E/973/03), the appellant was required to pay Rs. 3,00,000 by June 15, 1999, but paid it one day late. The penalty imposed by the original authority was Rs. 3,00,000, reduced to Rs. 30,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, in the second case (E/974/03), the appellant had to pay Rs. 3,67,000 by the end of June 1999, paid it one day late, and faced penalties reduced from Rs. 3,67,000 to Rs. 36,700. In the third case (E/975/03), the appellant was required to pay Rs. 6,00,000 by April 15, 1999, paid it one day late, and saw penalties reduced from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 60,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals).
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate attributed the delays to financial constraints and specific bank requirements for duty payments. The SDR highlighted the rule-based imposition of penalties for any delay, even if it was just for one day. The Tribunal considered both arguments and referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that penalties should be commensurate with any gain made by the party rather than equal to the outstanding duty amount.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found no intention to evade duty liability in the appellant's actions, as payments were made promptly the day after the due dates. Following the Gujarat High Court's precedent and considering the minimum prescribed penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), the Tribunal reduced the penalties in all three cases to Rs. 5,000 each. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, and the penalties were adjusted accordingly.
-
2007 (4) TMI 584
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the application for early hearing of an appeal as the amount involved exceeded Rs. One crore. The appeal is now scheduled for hearing on 11-6-07.
-
2007 (4) TMI 583
Issues:
1. Refund against wrongly generated invoice.
2. Violation of Rule 173G(2) by not cancelling the first invoice.
3. Discrepancies between the second invoice and actual goods transported.
Refund against wrongly generated invoice:
The Respondents generated two invoices, with one claimed to be wrongly generated by the computer, and no goods were actually moved under it. The Lower Appellate Authority allowed a refund for this invoice amounting to Rs. 26,411.23. The Judge found that the refund was justified as no evidence was presented by the Department that the invoice was used for transporting another consignment. The Judge held that the Department could take penal action for the violation of Rule 173G(2) but affirmed the refund against the first invoice since extra duty was paid without any goods being cleared under it.
Violation of Rule 173G(2) by not cancelling the first invoice:
The Department contended that the Respondents violated Rule 173G(2) by not cancelling the first invoice and failing to inform the Jurisdictional Range Officer. The Judge acknowledged this violation and stated that the Department could take penal action as per the rules for this non-compliance. However, the Judge maintained that the refund against the first invoice should not be denied as no goods were transported under it, and the extra duty paid needed to be refunded.
Discrepancies between the second invoice and actual goods transported:
The Department highlighted discrepancies between the second invoice and the actual goods transported under it. The Judge noted that the Department was free to take necessary action regarding these discrepancies. While affirming the Lower Appellate Authority's decision to allow the refund against the first invoice, the Judge emphasized that the Department had the liberty to address any discrepancies related to the second invoice and take appropriate actions as required.
In conclusion, the Judge rejected the Department's appeal at the admission stage based on the findings related to the refund against the wrongly generated first invoice and the Department's options to address the violations and discrepancies concerning the invoices and goods transported.
-
2007 (4) TMI 582
Issues: Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding duty demand amount and penalty recovery, Liability of penalty on legal heir post the death of the proprietor.
Rectification of Mistake in Final Order:
The judgment deals with an application for the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order regarding the duty demand amount. The applicant argued that the actual duty demand was Rs. 3,15,000/- and not Rs. 3,47,980/- as mentioned in the order. However, since the applicant did not provide any grounds or data supporting the quantification of the duty amount, the Tribunal rejected the plea for rectification. The Tribunal held that once the merits of the appeal had been discussed and rejected, the duty amount and penalty confirmed by the original order would stand, and the applicant could not re-agitate the issue at that stage.
Liability of Penalty on Legal Heir:
The second issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the liability of penalty on the legal heir after the death of the proprietor. The proprietor of the company in question had passed away after the Tribunal's order, and the applicant, who was the legal heir, argued that the penalty should not be recoverable from him. The applicant contended that the penalty amount was not recoverable from the legal representative of a deceased accused, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal, after verifying the death certificate and confirming the applicant's status as the legal heir, concluded that the penalty could not be recovered from the legal heir. Moreover, since the duty amount had already been deposited with the department, the penalty recovery from the applicant was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for rectification of mistake in this regard.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the stance on rectification of mistakes in final orders and the liability of penalties on legal heirs post the death of the proprietor, providing a nuanced legal interpretation and decision in each aspect of the case.
-
2007 (4) TMI 581
Rectification of mistake - Order of Appellate Tribunal - printing mistake in Notification G.O. (MS.) No. 256/95-LAD dated Thiruvananthapuram, 14th November, 1995 - Held that: - When the Tribunal passed the Final Order, this position was not brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, there is no mistake committed by the Tribunal.
In the interest of justice and fair play, we recall the Final Order and re-hear the matter on 11th June, 2007.
-
2007 (4) TMI 579
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard an appeal with an eight-month delay in filing. The delay was due to the order copy not being received by the employee representing the assessee, who left the services. The delay was satisfactorily explained and condoned as circumstances were beyond the assessee's control. Stay application to be listed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 578
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore allowed the State Government owned company's appeal for early hearing due to high revenue exceeding 20 lakhs. The matter is scheduled for hearing on 10th May 2007.
-
2007 (4) TMI 577
Issues involved: Revenue's appeal, party's appeal, benefit of Notification No. 26/95, denial of refund claim, unjust enrichment, CA's certificate, substantial evidence.
Revenue's Appeal: The Revenue appealed against OIA Nos. 185,186/04 seeking extension of benefit under Notification No 26/95 to the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed reassessment after allowing the exemption. However, the Assistant Commissioner later granted the exemption, rendering the appeal infructuous. As the appeal had no purpose, it was dismissed.
Party's Appeal - Denial of Refund Claim: The assessee's appeal challenged OIA No 637/06 denying the refund claim due to lack of substantial evidence proving no unjust enrichment, despite producing a CA's certificate. The appellant argued that they had submitted all necessary documents, including the CA's certificate, to show that duty had not been passed on. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant contended that the documents provided were sufficient to support their claim for a refund. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, setting aside the denial of the refund claim and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it became infructuous and allowed the party's appeal regarding the denial of the refund claim, emphasizing the sufficiency of the documents provided to establish the non-passing of duty and eligibility for a refund.
-
2007 (4) TMI 576
Issues: Duty demand arising from under-valuation of goods sold to DTA unit of EOU and discrepancies in private record of recipient DTA unit compared to statutory record of EOU.
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the duty demand of Rs. 72 lakhs arose due to disputes regarding under-valuation of goods sold to the DTA unit of the appellant EOU and Rs. 14 lakhs due to discrepancies in private record of the recipient DTA unit compared to the statutory record of the EOU. The Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the goods were correctly valued as the sale price to the DTA unit matched the export price of identical goods and was in line with valuation practices as per Circular dated 30-9-1994 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. He contended that the under-valuation finding was not sustainable. On the charge of clandestine clearance, it was argued that although sales invoice dates and dates of receipts in the private record did not match for some consignments, the accounts tallied in all other aspects, and the differences in dates should not be held against the assessee.
The Senior Counsel further argued that the valuation done by the revenue was as per Customs Valuation Rules and therefore, the assessable value determined was correct. Regarding clandestine removal, discrepancies revealed by the private record were admitted in the statements. The Tribunal found no merit in the under-valuation finding, stating that goods sold to the DTA unit were identical to the exported goods and thus should be valued the same. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal accepted the FOB value as a basis for valuation. However, regarding clandestine removal, the revenue had a prima facie case.
As a result, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance by a specified date. Upon this deposit, the requirement for further deposit was waived, and recovery was stayed pending the appeal's disposal. The order was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.
-
2007 (4) TMI 575
Issues: Classification of goods for duty payment under different invoices, applicability of Circular No. 252/86/96-CX for classification, evidence required for establishing the case, dispute regarding supply of goods as "replacement parts."
Classification of Goods: The appeal concerns the classification of goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents under separate invoices based on a single purchase order. The department claimed differential duty by classifying the goods as parts of machinery under various Headings of Chapter 84, contrary to the original classification under SH 8439.00. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the department's decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The learned SDR argued that there was no evidence to prove that the parts supplied would form a complete machinery and that the Circular No. 252/86/96-CX procedure should have been followed for such classification.
Evidence and Procedure: The Tribunal noted that the department needed to establish its case with appropriate evidence within the scope of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Revenue contended that the parts supplied were not sufficient to form a complete machinery under SH 8439.00 without additional bought-out items. The Tribunal emphasized that the question of whether the Board's circular applied and whether the goods were supplied as "replacement parts" should be addressed at the original level, pending clarification on the scope and ambit of the SCN, which was not provided.
Decision and Remand: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments, considering the observations made in the order. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the classification dispute.
-
2007 (4) TMI 574
Issues:
The appeal concerns the deletion of an addition of Rs. 13,14,326 as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Facts and Decision:
The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee received unsecured loans from a company where a shareholder had significant ownership in both the lending company and the assessee company. The AO applied section 2(22)(e) and treated the loan as deemed dividend. The assessee argued that the shareholder became a member of the assessee company after the loan was advanced, thus section 2(22)(e) did not apply. The CIT(A) agreed, emphasizing that the shareholder must be a member of the assessee company at the time of advancing the loan. As there was no evidence that the shareholder was a member at that time, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling that a "shareholder" refers to the registered shareholder, not the beneficial owner. Since the shareholder became a registered shareholder after the loan transaction, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
2007 (4) TMI 573
Issues:
- Appeal against conviction under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Allegations of entering into a criminal conspiracy and causing pecuniary loss to the Government.
- Charges against the accused related to issuance of a fictitious license.
- Lack of evidence apart from witness testimonies.
- Interpretation of legal provisions and mens rea requirement.
- Decision on the appeal and setting aside of the conviction.
Analysis:
1. The appeal in this case was made against the conviction of the accused under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, and also r/w Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges stemmed from allegations of a criminal conspiracy involving the accused and causing a significant pecuniary loss to the Government of India. The investigation by the CBI revealed that the accused, including A16, were involved in circulating fake permits and transporting non-duty paid tobacco under false permits, leading to financial losses.
2. A crucial aspect of the case revolved around the issuance of a fictitious license by A16, who was an Inspector of the Central Excise Department at the relevant time. The prosecution's case highlighted that A16 had recommended the issuance of an L2 license for a fictitious premises, leading to charges under various sections of the law. Witness testimonies, particularly that of P.W. 127, played a significant role in establishing the guilt of A16 in the issuance of the said license.
3. The defense, represented by the Amicus Curiae, argued that apart from the allegation related to the fictitious license, there was a lack of substantial evidence against A16. The defense emphasized the necessity of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and raised concerns about the adequacy of evidence to establish the guilt of A16 under the relevant legal provisions.
4. The judgment delved into the interpretation of legal provisions, particularly focusing on the mens rea requirement for establishing guilt under Section 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reference was made to a dictum of the Apex Court to analyze the applicability of the legal provisions to the facts of the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of a dishonest intention and misuse of position for personal gain to establish guilt under the relevant sections.
5. Ultimately, the Court, after a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal provisions, concluded that the charge leveled against A16 could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A16. It was held that A16 should be liable for departmental action rather than penalization under the provisions of law. The fine amount, if paid, was ordered to be refunded, and the bail bond was canceled. The Court appreciated the service of the Amicus Curiae and fixed her remuneration for the valuable assistance provided in the case.
-
2007 (4) TMI 572
Issues:
1. Entitlement to refund duty based on the order of Dy. Commissioner and subsequent appeals.
2. Rejection of refund claim by authorities based on finality of earlier orders.
3. Applicability of Tribunal's order on ACP and subsequent refund claim.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Entitlement to refund duty based on the order of Dy. Commissioner and subsequent appeals
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of processed MMF fabrics, filed a declaration for fixation of annual production capacity (ACP) under Rule 962ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Dy. Commissioner initially fixed the ACP by adding the length of galleries, which was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, holding that the length of galleries should not be added. The Revenue appealed against this decision before CEGAT, which dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appellant became entitled to a refund of duty paid during a specific period, leading to the filing of a refund claim.
Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim by authorities based on finality of earlier orders
Despite the entitlement to a refund based on the Tribunal's decision on the ACP issue, the authorities rejected the refund claim. They argued that the earlier orders of the Dy. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the refund claim had attained finality. The authorities contended that the subsequent refund claim could not be entertained a second time, as the earlier rejection was not challenged further by the appellant.
Issue 3: Applicability of Tribunal's order on ACP and subsequent refund claim
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, acknowledged the principle that an unchallenged order attains finality. However, the Tribunal referred to a recent decision of the Mumbai High Court, emphasizing that even if the correctness of the ACP was not challenged, the law declared by the Supreme Court regarding the inclusion of length of galleries in determining chambers should be considered. In this case, the ACP was challenged by the appellant and decided in their favor by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the ACP needed to be re-fixed based on its decision, and any consequent demand or refund should be confirmed or refunded accordingly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the observations made, particularly considering the Mumbai High Court judgment and the Tribunal's decision on the ACP issue.
-
2007 (4) TMI 571
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dismissed the appeal as the authorisation by the Committee of Commissioners was invalid due to lack of date and reasons for deeming the impugned order not legal or proper. The appeal was found not maintainable and was therefore dismissed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 570
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03.
2. Confirmation of duty.
3. Imposition of penalty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03:
The appellants, M/s Charu Steels Ltd., and its directors, contended that they were entitled to excise duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03. They argued that they had undertaken substantial expansion of their unit by increasing the installed capacity by more than 25% through modernization and installation of new machinery, including a new 5-ton furnace and other requisite infrastructure equipment. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption, stating that the expansion did not involve the installation of additional plant and machinery but rather the replacement of existing machinery.
The judgment emphasized that the notification's language did not specify the manner of achieving substantial expansion, only that the installed capacity must increase by at least 25%. It referenced the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) Circular No. 772/5/2004-CX dated 21-1-2004, which clarified that substantial expansion could result from modernization if it led to a 25% increase in installed capacity. The judgment also noted that similar cases, such as Purshottam Industries Ltd., had been granted exemption under similar circumstances.
2. Confirmation of Duty:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for central excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,15,765.00 and education cess of Rs. 34,315.00 for the period from 5-1-05 to 31-1-05, asserting that the appellants did not fulfill the conditions of the notification regarding substantial expansion. The appellants argued that they had increased their production capacity by more than 25% and had complied with all necessary procedures and documentation, including certificates from a Chartered Engineer and the General Manager of the District Industries Centre.
The judgment found that the appellants had indeed increased their installed capacity by more than 25% through modernization and replacement of critical machinery, meeting the notification's requirements. Consequently, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable.
3. Imposition of Penalty:
Penalties were imposed on the appellants and their directors for allegedly violating provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants contended that there was no intent to evade duty and that they had availed of the exemption in good faith. They cited case laws such as Acon's Construction Product v. CCE, Chennai and Fiber Foils Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, which supported their position that penalties should not be imposed in the absence of intent to evade duty.
The judgment concluded that since the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03, the imposition of penalties was not justified. The appellants had acted in good faith, believing they were entitled to the exemption, and had followed the necessary procedures.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, granting the appellants the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03. The demand for duty, interest, and penalties was set aside, and consequential relief was provided to the appellants.
-
2007 (4) TMI 569
Issues:
Settlement under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding import of vehicles under the EPCG Scheme availing concessional rate of duty.
Analysis:
The case involved applications for settlement under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 by a company and individuals against a Show Cause Notice demanding customs duty for importing vehicles under the EPCG Scheme. The vehicles, a Mercedez Benz car and a Bentley car, were not used for the prescribed purpose of earning Foreign Exchange, leading to the SCN demanding a total amount of Rs. 1,02,74,446/- along with penalties and interest. The applicants admitted the allegations, paid the full duty due, and sought immunities from fine, penalty, prosecution, and interest.
The Revenue opposed the grant of immunities, stating that the vehicles were not used for the intended purpose, and the duty evasion was a deliberate misuse of the EPCG Scheme for personal gain. They argued that the applicants did not qualify for immunity and cited previous judgments to support their position.
The Bench considered the submissions from both sides and decided on the grant of immunities. Immunity from penalty was granted based on the lack of evidence provided by Revenue regarding personal preferences in vehicle importation. However, immunity from interest was not granted due to the misuse of EPCG licenses and non-fulfillment of export obligations, as supported by various High Court judgments.
The final order settled the Customs duty at Rs. 1,02,74,446/- and directed the payment of interest at 15% from the due date. Immunity from redemption fine was not granted, and the Bench ordered confiscation of the vehicles with an option for redemption on payment of fines. Immunity from penalty and prosecution was granted to the applicants under the Act and relevant Rules.
The order granted immunities under Section 127H(1) of the Act, with a caution that it would be void if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The applicants were informed of the provisions of relevant subsections, and all concerned parties were notified accordingly.
-
2007 (4) TMI 568
Issues involved: Interpretation of Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 regarding labelling of medicaments amounting to manufacture and imposition of duty and penalty.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where the appellants imported medicaments and cleared them after labelling without payment of duty, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of duty and penalty. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had previously decided a seizure case related to the matter, citing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Johnson & Johnson, which influenced the present case. The Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on the assessees, prompting the appeal.
The Tribunal considered the precedent set by the case of Johnson & Johnson, where it was established that mere labelling or re-labelling of containers was not enough to trigger the provisions of Note 5 to Chapter 30. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the Apex Court, emphasizing that re-packing from bulk to retail packs was also necessary to attract the said provision. In the current case, it was noted that there was no evidence of the appellants engaging in the re-packing process in addition to labelling. Therefore, following the Apex Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and disposing of the Revenue's cross-objection.
-
2007 (4) TMI 567
Issues involved:
Settlement application filed by M/s. Gurukrupa Metal Recycling and co-applicants u/s Show Cause Notice No. DRI/JRU/INV-03/05 dated 10-2-2006 issued by ADG, DRI, Ahmedabad.
Settlement of Duty Liability:
The main applicant was directed to deposit admitted duty liability of Rs. 15,71,155/- within 30 days, which was paid on 20-3-2007. The delay in payment was due to financial hardship as the factory was closed. The applicants requested an extension which was supported by valid reasons.
Allegations and Defense:
The main applicant denied clandestine removal but admitted and paid duty due to the closure of their unit. They argued that the seized currency was not related to the imported goods and requested full immunity from interest, penalty, and prosecution. They emphasized the lack of evidence linking the seized cash to the impugned goods.
Revenue's Position:
Revenue confirmed full duty payment by the main applicant. They argued that the seized cash was linked to the imported goods and opposed granting immunity from interest. Revenue highlighted discrepancies in the explanations provided by the applicants and emphasized the value of the imported goods corresponding to the seized cash.
Bench's Decision:
The Bench observed the lack of tangible evidence linking the seized currency to the impugned goods. Citing legal precedents, the Bench held that suspicion cannot replace proof in cases of currency seizure. The proposal for confiscation of goods not available was deemed unsustainable. The case was settled under Section 127C(7) with terms including settling duty liability, granting immunity from interest, releasing seized currency, dropping the proposal for confiscation of goods, and granting immunities from penalties and prosecution.
Immunities and Conditions:
The settlement included accepting the deposited duty amount, granting immunity from interest exceeding 10% per annum, releasing the seized currency, dropping the proposal for confiscation of imported goods, and granting immunities from penalties and prosecution. These immunities were granted u/s 127H(1) of the Act, subject to compliance with the settlement terms and conditions.
Withdrawal of Immunities:
The order stipulated that immunities would be void if the Bench found any concealment of material particulars, false evidence, fraud, or misrepresentation of facts by the applicants. The attention was drawn to relevant sections of the Act regarding the withdrawal of immunities.
-
2007 (4) TMI 566
Absolute Confiscation - Gold - Baggage Rules - Held that: - Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, option for redemption against payment of fine is available to the appellant in respect of gold also. There is no bar against such option by reason of the goods being an item notified under Section 123 of the Act or for any other reasons - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2007 (4) TMI 565
Issues:
- Confiscation of diamonds and imposition of penalties based on violation of conditions stipulated under Notifications.
- Challenge against penalties imposed on the Director and Employees of the company.
- Dispute regarding the confirmation of demand of duty, penalties, and absolute confiscation of diamonds.
- Allegations of manufacturing cut and polished diamonds without evidence.
Confiscation of Diamonds and Penalties:
The appeals arose from an order-in-appeal that upheld the order-in-original confiscating diamonds and imposing penalties. The appellant company, licensed to set up an industrial unit in SEEPZ, was found with seized diamonds released to an employee, later discovered with the Director. The adjudicating authority confirmed confiscation, demand of excise duty, and penalties under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed these decisions, leading to the appeals challenging penalties and confiscation.
Challenge Against Penalties:
The appellants contested the penalties imposed, claiming they were not manufacturers of cut and polished diamonds but of jewelry studded with diamonds. They argued that the confirmation of duty demand was based on a misconception of importing rough diamonds for manufacturing, lacking evidence. The appellants sought to set aside the confiscation and penalties, asserting the entire case hinged on incorrect grounds.
Dispute Over Demand of Duty and Confiscation:
The Ministry of Commerce granted the appellant permission to manufacture jewelry, not cut and polished diamonds. The show cause notice alleged the import of rough diamonds for unauthorized manufacturing, leading to confiscation and penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found discrepancies in the allegations, noting the absence of evidence supporting rough diamond importation or manufacturing facilities. The order to confirm duty demand and penalties was deemed unsustainable, being based on misconceptions.
Manufacturing Allegations Without Evidence:
The absence of evidence regarding rough diamond imports or manufacturing facilities raised doubts about the allegations against the appellant. The appellant's licensing for jewelry manufacturing contradicted claims of cut and polished diamond production. The lack of mismatch between physical and book stock of diamonds imported for jewelry indicated no cut and polished diamond manufacturing. The order confirming duty demand and penalties was set aside due to misconceived charges.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals against penalties and confiscation. The absolute confiscation of diamonds was found unjustified, as the evidence did not support manufacturing claims. The penalties imposed on the appellants were also set aside. The decision left the matter of returning the diamonds to the rightful owner to the authority for proper resolution according to the governing law.
............
|
9911796707
