9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., Kirloskarwadi, Dist. Sangli - 416 308 (hereinafter referred as the appellants) against OIO No. 35/CEX/JC/209 dated 30th November, 2009. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant cleared the excisable goods valued at Rs. 77,98,047/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,10,939/- to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) without payment of duty under Rule 30 of SEZ Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that on adjudication, the Joint Commissioner has dropped the demand of Rs. 7,10,939/-, since the appellant had produced re-warehousing certificates, but imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Aggrieved against the imposition of penalty, the appellant has come up with the present appeal along with stay petition. The contentions of the appellant are summar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te intimation. The hearing has been fixed for hearing stay petition. However, he has requested that the original petition itself may be taken for hearing. Accordingly, the hearing has been held for the main petition. During the hearing, he reiterated the submissions made in the appeal memorandum. 4. I have gone through the case records including record of PH, carefully. As requested by the consul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2006. As the Joint Commissioner has not mentioned any contravention of SEZ Rules, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. Under the above circumstances, penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner is not supported by any law. 4.1 In addition to the above, on merits also, the appellant is not liable to pay any penalty. Perusal of the record reveals that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the appellant had made sincere efforts to get the re-warehousing certificate, but could not get the same. What was possible by the appellant has been done. It is not possible or expected from the appellant to go to the destination point and get the goods re-warehoused and produce the same at the origin point. In other words, the delay had been occurred at the destination point and for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
