9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffset printing machines had been imported in the name of M/s. Goldline Offset Printers in May 1999. These goods were examined by the DRI. It appeared to the department that the market value of the goods would be Rs. 32 lakhs and that the importer was not the actual user, hence the said secondhand printing machines could not be imported by them. During the investigation, M/s. Goldline Offset Printers, had disowned the said goods. The matter was adjudicated and the goods confiscated which were lying in Inddev CFS, Chennai absolutely without extending any option for redemption vide Order-in-Original dated 31.1.2001. In the meantime, however, M/s. Orr Jay Process, Chennai (appellants in both these cases) had filed IGM amendment and Bill of Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter and other persons under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. In adjudication, the original authority, inter alia, confirmed confiscation of the imported printing machines and the amount of Rs. 32 lakhs paid by the appellant and also imposed penalties on the importer and other persons. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 25.6.2013 partly allowed the appeal restricting the confiscation of sale proceeds to Rs. 9,65,000/- only but retaining penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs imposed on them. The appellate authority ordered adjustment of these amounts against the deposited amount of Rs. 32 lakhs and ordered that the balance amount of Rs. 18,35,000/- be refunded the appellant in accordance with law. Hence Appeal No. C/421 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs was not sale proceeds. The same had not been seized by the authorities on any reasonable belief that it represented sale proceeds. The said deposit was made under compulsion. It was further submitted that the penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs imposed under section 112(a) ibid was not imposable since the goods are not liable for confiscation at all under section 111 of the Act. Hence, penalty is also not sustainable. 6. On the other hand, with regard to Appeal No. C/40/2007, the learned AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy submits that there was no cause for filing the refund claim since there was no order of assessment giving rise to the refund claim. He further draws attention to page 11 of the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65,000/- and penalty amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- is in order or otherwise. (iii) We intend to take up both the issues one by one. 10. In respect of Appeal No. C/40/2007, we note that the appellant had filed refund claim proximate to payment of Rs. 32 lakhs against Bill of Entry No. 022484 dated 31.7.2000. Refund section of Custom House issued deficiency memo-cum-show cause notice dated 16.10.2003 to the appellant stating that the claim was deficient since there were no enclosed copies of Order-in-Original / Order-in-Appeal etc. based on which the refund could be considered. In response, the appellants replied vide letter dated 24.11.2003 that refund had been filed to ensure that it did not became time-barred in respect of time-limit. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, for payment of duty, therefore question of assessment to duty mentioned in section 27 would certainly would not arise until the order of assessment has been made, consequently, there would be no cause of action of refund ad any claim thereof would not be maintainable. We do not find any infirmity with these findings of the lower appellate authority. As correctly observed by him, the clock of limitation would start taking only on receipt/communication of an order in adjudication proceedings issued to the appellants. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal (C/40/2007), for which the same is dismissed. 12. In respect of Appeal No. C/42143/2013, the proceedings thereat are consequence of appellants having cleared consignment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of an amount of Rs. 32 lakhs when the impugned order appealed against has in fact restricted the amount for confiscation to Rs. 9,65,000/-. There are also no grounds preferred by the appellant to disprove the findings of the lower appellate authority that the said amount of Rs. 9,65,000/-, worked out from sales invoices produced by the appellants themselves, do not represent the total sale proceeds of the imported goods. 13. The appellants have made protestations of ignorance that they had no knowledge about the confiscated nature of the goods when they sought clearance. In fact, an attempt has been made to put the blame on the department officers as to why clearance was allowed for such goods when those were confiscated. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
