9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs Tariff ii) I confirm the SADD of Rs. 73,86,295/- (Rupees Seventy Three Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Five only) as demanded in the SCN. iii) I confiscate the goods valued at Rs. 1,09,70, 820/- under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow redemption of the same on payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Eleven Lakhs only). iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs Five Lakhs only) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Maharaja Whiteline Industries. Penalty under Section 114A and 114AA is not applicable in the present case. v) I do not impose any penalty on Managing Director, Vice President and Manager of the firm as per discussions above. 2.1 Appellants had filed B/E No 681816 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tons, 500 Tons and 650 Tons. 2.4 A show cause notice was issued to the appellants calling them to show cause as to why:- (i) the value of the individual parts imported under Bill of Entry No 681816 dated 25.01.2011 and as declared in the said Bill of Entry should not be rejected and the consignment be assessed as "ix sets of complete injection moulding machines without clamping unit" and total assessable value of the consignment should not be taken as Rs. 1,09,70,820.15 instead of individual value of parts as declared in the bill of entry. (ii) The goods imported under Bill of Entry No 681816 dated 25.01.2011 should not be classified under Tariff Item No 8477.10.00 of the Customs Tariff. (iii) The goods imported under Bill of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability towards payment of customs duty. He asserted that since appellants do not intend to claim the goods they are not pressing any point taken in the appeal filed. 3.3 Learned Authorized representative reiterated the findings of Commissioner. 4.1 We have considered the submissions made during the course of arguments and the impugned order. 4.2 Since appellants are not pressing any point taken in the appeal and do not wish to claim the goods, we are not passing order on the merits of the case. 4.3 The goods covered by the B/E No 681816 dated 25.01.2011 have been confiscated and appellant have been allowed the option to redeem on payment of redemption fine. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Fortis Hospital Ltd [2015 (318) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein are violated. Therefore, if the Department wanted the Institute to pay the duty, which may have become payable, it could have taken independent action; de hors Section 124 of the Act, for payment of duty, simultaneously with the notice under Section 124 of the Act or by issuing composite notice for such an action. No doubt, it could have waited for option to be exercised by the Institute under Section 125(1) of the Act as well and in that eventuality, duty would have automatically become payable under Section 125(2) of the Act. But when such an option was not exercised, it could have taken separate and independent action by issuing show cause notice to the effect that the Institute had violated the terms of exemption notification and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
