TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case. Therefore, while upholding the impugned Order-in-Original, we reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) and penalty to ₹ 50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousands only). - Decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.C/161/2008-DB - Order No. A/11582/2015 - Dated:- 29-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Shri T. Vishwanathan, Shri Manish Jain, Ms.Uma Lohray, Advocates For the Respondent: Shri L. Tendupatra, Authorised Representative JUDGEMENT Per: P.M. Saleem The facts of the case in the present appeal are as follows:- Date Events 04.12.2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order was confirmed by ld.Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide Order dt.15.12.2003 and CESTAT, Mumbai vide Order dt.13.02.2006. 29.11.2002 Appellants filed Bill of Entry for the said vessel and paid Customs duty thereon. The Department applied the rate of duty prevailing in November 2002 [perhaps by virtue of Section 15(1)(c)] and applied 5% (BCD-Sl.No.353 of Notification No.21/02-Cus) and 4% SAD (Sl.No.62 of Notification No.23/02-Cus). 17.08.2007 Department issued show cause notice (the present proceedings) proposing to confiscate the tug under Section 111(f) and impose penalty, for not filing IGM for the intervening period 16.07.2001 to 29.11.2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trospective exemption has been provided for the period 01.03.2011 to 16.03.2011 vide Clause 129 of the Finance Act, 2012, the requirement for filing IGM and Bill of Entry may be insisted in all such cases w.e.f. 17.03.2012, that is the date from which levy of CVD has come into force . f) In any case, it is undisputed that the IGM has been filed on 29.11.2002 with post facto permission of ld.Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mundra. This IGM would relate back to the date of import. Reliance is placed on decision in case of Assistant Collector v. Associated Forest Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.). g) In Final Order dated 13.2.2006 the Tribunal held that bill of entry filed for IGM is good enough to cover the vessel impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter and pay the appropriate duty. It is seen from the Note Sheet of the file of the Department, which is a part of the record of the first proceedings, that the Department accepted the request of the Appellant and they were also imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,000.00. However, on a later date, the present proceedings were initiated on the ground that the IGM was not amended and proposed confiscation of the vessel which has culminated into the impugned Order-in-Original, wherein the vessel was confiscated with redemption fine of ₹ 25 lakhs, alongwith penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs on the Appellant was ordered. 6. We find that the Department was aware of the irregularities committed by the Appellant at the time of first proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
