TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of the decision of Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Rakesh Nayar (2010 (1) TMI 492 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) and also pleaded the financial hardship. All these evidences or the contentions shall be considered at the final hearing of the case that the retracted statement cannot be basis of confirmation or demand or the applicants are not having manufacturing facility in their factory. - applicants have failed to make out a case of complete waiver of pre deposit - partial stay granted. - Application No. C/STAY/52656-52658/2014 And Appeal No. C/52138-52140/2013-CU(DB) - Stay Order No. 53474-53476/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 9-11-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Shri R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The applicants are seeking waiver of pre deposit of demand of duty confirmed against them along with interest and various penalties imposed on them. 2. As facts of all the three cases are common / identical, therefore, all the applications are taken up together for consideration for waiver of pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sheetal Kumar Vij jointly or severely. The matter was adjudicated. Duty was demanded from the applicants namely M/s. Ess Kay International, and its proprietor / partner Shri Rajender Arora, Ms. Vishakha Arora severely or jointly along with interest. Further, duty was also demanded from Shri Subal export and its proprietor / partner Shri Subal Khanna and Shri Rajender Arora jointly or severely. Duty was also demanded from M/s. Chirag Export and Shri Rajinder Arora jointly or severely. Penalties on all the applicants were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the applicants filed appeal before this Tribunal. To entertain the appeal without pre-depositing the amount in dispute, the applicants filed applications for waiver of pre deposit which are being listed before us for consideration. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that in this case the applicants have already discharged their export obligation and the licensing authority has not raised any objection to discharge their export obligation. Moreover, the exported goods were duly examined and found to be manufactured and as declared. Therefore, the allegation of the investigation authority is not sustainable. Moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machines which were installed in their factory. He further submitted that M/s. Chirag export was also having spinning unit at Amritsar whereas they have spun the yarn from the raw material. Further, it is not the case of DRI that M/s. Ess Kay International and M/s. Chirag Export had cleared yarn in the open market. He further submits that the applicants had filed at least 150 shipping bills and the goods were duly examined at the port with regard to quality, value and quantity and after verification of the goods, the endorsement were made in DEEC book. Therefore, the charge of Revenue is not sustainable. 8. He further submits that the Adjudicating authority has relied on a letter from the Consulate General of India in Dubai wherein the valuation was shown less than in shipping bills at the port of dispatch. No such evidence has been provided to the applicants and mentioned in show cause notice and this allegation is only a bald allegation. He further submits that as the applicants have discharged export obligation and BRCs have been received after due examination of these documents, the DGFT has accepted the export obligation and issued redemption certificates. Therefore, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eetal Kumar Vij is the kingpin but after investigation, it was found that Shri Sheetal Kumar Vij have no link with this case. Therefore, he was exonerated by the Adjudicating authority but after thorough investigation analyzing the documents records it was found that the applicants were involved in the activity of diversion of imported goods in the open market which was imported duty free. In that circumstances, the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand against the applicants. 11. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 12. In this case the allegation made against the applicants is that they have imported goods (duty free) and diverted into the open market on the basis of certain statements recorded during the course of investigation and on the fact that applicants were not having any manufacturing facility of the resultant product which were required to be exported by them. We have seen that initially it was alleged that the imported goods have been diverted to Shri Sheetal Kumar Vij who was actively engaged in diversion. But after thorough investigation, it was found that Shri Sheetal Kumar Vij have no role in diversion of imported goods by the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
