TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found that the exported FeSi, against which DEPB and FMS was availed, was procured from Traders/Suppliers from the local market. Taking into consideration of the fact that the DGFT authorities had already imposed penalty upon the appellant, the penalty imposed on the appellant company is not warranted - Regarding imposition of penalty on the appellant no.2, Director of the appellant company the adjudicating authority observed that Shri Chetan Aggarwala was aware of the fact that no export incentive was availed on FeSi of Bhutanese origin and returned the entire amount of the incentive therefore imposition of penalty is not warranted. The impugned order is modified to the extent and the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs (Port) appropriated the amount of ₹ 39,97,208/- and also confirmed the duty amounting to ₹ 1,43,381/- and ₹ 79,380/- equivalent to incentive availed by them in the form of FMS Licenses and DEPT Licenses alongwith interest. A penalty of ₹ 15.00 lakhs and ₹ 1.00 lakh each was imposed on the appellant company and Shri Chetan Aggarwala, Director of the appellant company under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for goods exported through Kolkata/Haldia Port and Petrapole Land Customs Station respectively. A separate penalty of ₹ 10.00 lakhs and ₹ 1.00 lakh has also been imposed on Shri Chetan Aggarwala, Director of the appellant company, under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties for the same offence, which tantamounts to double jeopardy, as held by the Tribunal in various decisions. He also submitted that the appellant no.2, Director of the appellant company had no prior knowledge of the quantity of FeSi purchased from the local market or imported from Bhutan and therefore the imposition of penalty on the appellant no.2, the Director of the appellant company is not justified. 3. Ld. D.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submitted that the appellant no.2 had admitted the offence in so far as wrongful abatement of export incentive and have returned the entire amount of incentive availed on FeSi and therefore the imposition of penalty is justified. 4. Heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c notice, the allegation of mis-declaration regarding the country of origin of exported goods cannot be sustained. He also submitted that they were not aware that export incentive was not available on Bhutanese goods as those were purchased in Indian Rupees. He also stated that as soon as they came to know that the export incentive was not available on the export of goods of third country origin, they had returned the entire amount of export incentive received on FeSi as they were not sure about the country of origin of FeSi purchased from the local market. It is seen from the Adjudication Order that the appellant had paid the amount availed against the export incentive. 7. It is seen from the records that the show cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said irregularity to DGFT under F.No.109/KOL/APP/2012/5803 dated 12.11.2013 to take appropriate action against the Scripts which were liable for cancellation. Accordingly, DGFT had issued notices dated 03.07.2014 in terms of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and hence, further action by Customs on the same issue was not warranted. In the appeal Hon ble CESTAT, Principal Bench decision in the case of Hind Industries vs. Commr. Of Customs, New Delhi [2014(314) ELT 342 (Tri.- Del.)] was referred. The said decision clearly held that in case of any irregularity in DEPB cases DGFT is the only authority to take action in such matters. The said decision also clarified applicability of section 28AAA of Customs Act, 1962. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
