TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. These appeals have been filed against Orders-in-Original No. 12 13/2005, dated 30-9-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. Appellat No. 1 is M/s. Kedia Overseas Limited and Appellant No. 2 is M/s. Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Limited. Both the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id value was more than 10, therefore according to the PFA Act the sample was considered to be other than the edible oil grade. The appellant No. 1 filed Ex-bond Bill of Entry before the receipt of the test result from the Chemical Examiner, Visakhapatnam, however, before the clearance of the goods the test result was received and the appellant was prepared to re-export the entire cargo lying in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n payment of fine of Rs. 9,00,000/-. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the first appellant under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. Further the differential duty along with interest on 500 MT of oil already cleared was demanded. The re-export was subject to the condition of payment of the differential duty on 500 MTs of oil. In respect of the second appellant, the Commissioner passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods conformed to PFA standard that is why a quantity of 500 MT was released to the first appellant. At the time of filing the bill of entry all the necessary documents including the load port analysis certificates were furnished. Therefore the imposition of fine and penalty is not justified. The appellants have not committed any act, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation. As soon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport of the goods. In these circumstances, the bonafides of the appellants cannot be doubted. Hence, the imposition of fine and penalty on the appellants is not justified. No doubt the first appellant is liable to pay differential duty on the 500 MTs of oil already cleared, to this extent, the Order of the Original Authority is confirmed. As per the request of the appellants, the goods may be re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
