9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Manoj Kumar, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) - for Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS steel pipes and tubes falling under Chapter Heading 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA). They had imported raw materials i.e. HR coils without payment of customs duty under Advance Authorization Licenses in terms of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof. Since the appellants have discharged the customs duty and also paid the interest, there is no question of penalty and redemption fine. He further submits that the goods were not available for confiscation. In such case, the redemption fine was not at all warranted. In this support, he placed the reliance on the following judgments: - (a) Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order. He further submits that as per the Notification No.93/2004-Cus, it is obligatory on the part of the assessee that in case the imported goods are not used, the customs duty along with interest must be paid at the time of removal of such imported goods. In the present case, the appellant have cleared the goods without payment of customs duty. It is only on pointing out by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the appellants have not paid the customs duty when the goods were removed. This demand is also admitted by the appellant, therefore, penalty under Section 114A is inevitable particularly when there is suppression of fact and extended period was invoked under the show-cause notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textiles Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
