9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to adjudication upon finalization of provisional assessment in accordance with section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. By the impugned order, differential duty of Rs. 15,03,018 was demanded, the goods held liable for confiscation but, owing to non-availability subject to redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000 in lieu besides imposition of penalty under section 114A on the importer and under section 112 against two employees of the importing company. Three appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Proceedings were initiated against M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd for alleged suppression of a part of 'canalising commission' paid to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on nine consignments of imported 'liquefied petroleum gas' that had been procur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority once again. In those proceedings the order of finalisation was set aside for a further determination by the original authority. It is contended by the appellant that the matter was yet to be decided by the first appellate authority. While these were underway, investigations were commenced by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the failure to discharge appropriate customs duty on the canalisation charges leading to issue show cause notice dated 16th March 2006 for recovery of duty on nine bills of entry which were already subject to proceedings before the 'proper officer' under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. It may be pointed out that the recovery proceedings under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 was initiated when the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962 could not be invoked. 6. Akin to the facts and circumstances pertaining to the dispute in re Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd, the tax authorities are well aware that import of 'liquefied petroleum gas' was canalised and this should have prompted the assessing officers to seek out and enhance the fee of canalisation. Furthermore, the claim of the appellant stands on a better footing than the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as proceedings relating to the addition of this fee was pending in the appellate hierarchy on the very same bills of entry when the show cause notices were issued. 7. This, therefore, raises the question of whether the proceedings under section 28 could be initiated without any restraint on the number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the prescribed fine. Without the wherewithal to return the goods on fulfilment of the condition of fine, the imposition of redemption fine is an exercise in futility. Imposition of redemption fine does not of itself create a debt to the government. The option to redeem his one that has to be exercised by the person to whom that offer has been extended. The imposition of fine in the impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 10. It surprises that the adjudicating authority has considered it fit to impose personal penalties on officers of the appellant-company. Their acts of omission or commission contributing to the contravention that led to confiscation of the goods has not been convincingly brought out in the impugned order. In any case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
