Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (11) TMI 567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is completed such aluminium alloy extruded products are not permitted to be sold in the domestic market. Based upon an intelligence, the manufacturing unit and other places of the applicants were searched and it was found that in respect of 4 licences (3 advance licences and 1 advance authorization) the applicants have imported aluminum scrap. However, the finished products have not been exported. During the visit, no scrap so imported was found in the factory of the applicants. Similarly, no finished product meant to be exported was found. The concerned officials including the Director of the applicant company admitted that the goods have been diverted and they have not maintained records as required under the law. Based upon the investigation, a show-cause notice under 6-7-2012 was issued to the applicants which was adjudicated vide the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,26,69,523/-. Further the said raw material was confiscated under Sec. 111(o) of the Customs Act as the said goods have not been utilized in accordance with the provisions of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus and redemption fine of Rs. One crore was imposed. In addition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of the goods imported under the advance licence. Ld. A.R. argued that in all the 4 cases, the export obligation fulfilled was negligible and whatever export obligation has been fulfilled the benefit of that has already been extended in the show-cause notice itself. At the time of visit, no raw material was found and as per the conditions of the Notification read with the Policy and Hand Book of Procedures, the importer is not permitted to divert either the raw material or the finished product till the export obligation is completed. Ld. A.R. further stated that it is incorrect to state that principles of natural justice have not been followed. In the said case, personal hearings were conducted on 25.9.2012, 4.10.2012 and 22.10.2012. The applicants have also submitted their written reply. At the time of personal hearings, the applicants have submitted that they have approached DGFT for granting relaxation in respect of export obligation. Ld. A.R. further stated that out of the 4 licences in question 3 were issued during April, 2005 to August, 2005 with the validity of 24 months. In one case export obligation period was extended by another 12 months. In the 4 th case the advance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....licence to the Policy Relaxation Committee is mis-leading. The application now produced is dated 26.8.2013. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 29.11.12 and in fact even the applicants have filed the present appeal on 26.3.2013. Obviously, this application has been made after filing the present appeals along with the stay applications. Even the said application is of no consequence as the present cases pertain to the period 2005-2006 and the applicants have not made any case for clubbing with other exports made during the same period. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and the brief facts are already stated in the beginning. There is no dispute about the fact that the aluminium scrap was imported against the 4 licences in question. The said import was allowed free of customs duty subject to the condition that the said raw material will be used in the manufacture of aluminium alloys extruded products and the same would be exported. There is no dispute that the raw materials were imported and at the time of visit neither the raw material nor any finished product was found. This obviously implies that either the imported goods have been diverted som....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us case laws cited by the ld. advocate for the applicants. In the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and others - (1980) 4 Supreme Court cases 379, the facts were that Shri S.L.Kapoor was a non-official member of the New Delhi Municipal Committee, which was superseded by the Lt. Governor on the ground that the Committee was incompetent to perform and had made persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under the law. Four instances or grounds were mentioned. These were different cases where certain decisions were taken by the Committee and according to Lt. Governor, the decisions were not correct. Shri S.L. Kapoor disputed the decision of Lt. Governor to supercede the New Delhi Municipal Committee on the ground that the said decision have been made without following the principles of natural justice i.e. without giving them a chance or notice to explain and it is in this context that the Hon'ble supreme Court has stated that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule. In the present case, all the applicants have been issued with show-cause notice, they have given the reply, three dates of hearing were also granted and in view of the posit....