TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent under the STP schemes, which involves obligation to export software. Transferring such duty-free goods out of their own possession would amount to de facto de-bonding of such goods. The demand of duty foregone on the imported as well as indigenous goods is in order. It is also on record that the entire duty liability along with interest stands already paid by the respondent - waiver of redemption fine and penalty confirmed - Decided against the revenue. - C/CO/55/2011 in C/433/2006-DB, C/433/2006-DB - Final Order No. 20998 / 2016 - Dated:- 21-10-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri N. Jagadish, AR For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per V. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order confirmed the duty demand already paid by the respondents along with interest. He further held that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, inasmuch as the respondent leased out the duty-free goods in violation of the relevant customs and central excise Notifications. However, he took a lenient view and refrained from imposing redemption fine and penalty on the respondent. 2. Revenue has filed an appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner ought to have imposed redemption fine on the goods held as liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also should have imposed pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities detecting that the respondent have leased out their STP premises along with the duty-free procured equipments to other STP units. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has upheld the duty demand on the goods which stand already paid by the respondent. The interest on the customs as well as excise duties also stands paid up by the respondent. The Revenue s appeal seeks to impose redemption fine on the goods held as liable to confiscation in the impugned order as well as to impose penalty on the respondent. The respondent in his cross-objections has pleaded that the entire order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the duty demand itself is not justified. 5.1 The Notification No.52/2003-Cus. (para 1) allows various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lessee units are also engaged in development and export of software. It is also pertinent to record that the diversion of such units has not been made outside the EOU scheme/STP scheme. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner s order taking a lenient view and refraining from imposition of redemption fine and penalty cannot be faulted with. 5.3 In the cross-objections filed by the respondent, they have argued that even the liability for payment of duty and interest does not arise on their part. We are of the view that such a view is not proper in circumstances of the present case. The imported as well as indigenous goods have been procured duty free by the respondent under the STP schemes, which involves obligation to export software. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
