TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant No. 3 has confirmed that it had received the goods and used for slitting purpose, it cannot be said that non-fulfilment of the conditions of N/N. 52/2003-CUS., dated 31/03/2003 is attributable to fraud, collusion, separation of facts, with intent to evade payments of duty - since the appellant No. 3 had deposited the duty foregone on account of import of the goods and also deposited the appropriate interest, the benefit of Section 28 (2B) ibid should be available, for non-imposition of penalty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/59647, 59648 and 59651/2013 [EX]-SM - Final Order No. 58210-58212/2017 - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Hon ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Ms Rinki Arora, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by appellant No. 3 to the appellant No. 1 for the purpose of job work. It was further observed that the appellant No. 1 after undertaking the job work activities, instead of returning the goods to the appellant No. 3, had diverted the same to the domestic market. On the basis of investigation/ verification of records, the department initiated proceedings against the appellants for confirmation of the duty demand and for imposition of penalties. The show cause notices issued to the appellants were adjudicated vide order dated 27/01/2012, wherein Customs Duty demand of ₹ 2,22,415/- along with interest was confirmed against the appellant No. 3 and such amount deposited by the appellant was appropriated to the Government account under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 on the ground that the goods were not removed clandestinely from the factory and the duty liability has been appropriately discharged by both the appellants. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. I find from the impugned order that the appellant No. 3 has not contested the issue on merits, which is indicated at paragraph 8 in the impugned order. Before the commissioner (Appeals), the prayer of the appellant No. 3 was only confined to non-imposition of penalty on it. 7. On perusal of case records, I find that the appellant No. 1 vide its letter dated 21/05/2010 had informed the Jurisdictional Renge Superint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the goods and used for slitting purpose, it cannot be said that non-fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No. 52/2003-CUS., dated 31/03/2003 is attributable to fraud, collusion, separation of facts, with intent to evade payments of duty. In this case, since the appellant No. 3 had deposited the duty foregone on account of import of the goods and also deposited the appropriate interest, I am of the view that the benefit of Section 28 (2B) ibid should be available, for non-imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the impugned order, so far as it imposed penalty on the appellant No. 3, is set aside and the appeal is allowed in its favour. 9. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. [ Order pronounced in the open court on 05/12/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
