TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order, the Commissioner has confirmed duty against one M/s Systematic Corporation along with imposition of penalty upon them. However, their appeals are not before us. 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri K.I. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri D. S. Negi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, we find that the goods were cleared by M/s Cosmos Trading Co. under 5 bills of entry, in the name of M/s Systematic Corporation against advance release order, issued by M/s Systematic Corporation against advance licenes. As per the endorsement on the licenes, the name of the supporting manufacturer was declared as M/s Reliable Polyfab, Surat. The allegation against the appellant is that instead of clearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer and the same is diverted in the open market by them. As regards imposition of penalty upon the present appellant, he has observed as under : 27. SCN also proposes to penalize M/s Cosmos Trading Co., KASEZ, Gandhidham and its partner, Shri Nilesh Bansal under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is seen from the statement dt. 8-5-03 of Shri Devendra P. Bansal, Partner of M/s Cosmos Trading Co. that on receipt of request letter dt.8-4-03 from M/s Systematic Corporation, Mumbai regarding delivery of goods to M/s Khandelwal Clearing Agency, Bhiwandi instead of their factory premise at M/s Reliable Polyfab, Pipodra, Surat, they delivered the goods to M/s Khandelwal Clearing Agency, Bhiwandi. He has also state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smos Trading Co. had colluded with M/s Systematic Corporation, Mumbai in defrauding the Government. Their contention that they were not aware of the mala fide intentions of M/s Systematic Corporation is not found to be acceptable since as per the documents available with them for clearance of the consignments i.e. advance licene and condition sheet etc., the consignments should have been sent to the supporting manufacturer at Surat. No clarification is given by them as to why one of their partner, Shri Nilesh Bansal, was present at Bhiwandi when the consignments had reached at there. In absence of any such clarification, the needle of doubt is pointed to them and it is seen that even after the clearance/sale of the materials from their fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dressed by M/s Systematic Corporation, directing the appellant to deliver the goods at their Bhiwandi godown in as much as the same were required to be sent to other manufacturer for job work, the dispatch of goods to Bhiwandi godown by the appellant cannot be held to be an act in violation of the law. In this connection, we refer to Tribunal s decision in the case of Navjyothi International v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2004 (177) E.L.T. 875 (Tri-Chennai), whereby a reference was made to the clarification given by the JDGFT authorities to the effect that - it was not mandatory to get the supporting manufacturer s name endorsed on the advance licences and it was permissible for the assessee to get the imported raw material processed through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
