TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw material supplier namely, M/s Royal Industries Ltd. and balance quantity which was also got converted into yarn, as per the assertion of the appellant, was not lifted by the supplier and therefore, the appellant have cleared the same after taking the same in the statutory record namely RG-1 Register and on payment of appropriate Central excise duty. For invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 the subject goods need to be made liable of confiscation - so far as the appellant is concerned the goods were duly covered by prescribed job work documents and the same were also taken on record in the books of the accounts of the appellant, therefore, the quantities which have been received by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l into domestic area in violation of the provisions of the customs act as well as the scheme of 100% EOU pronounced by the Government of India. From the investigations, it transpired that the Royal Industries Ltd. has sent a quantity of 74892 Kgs of Acrylic Fibre for conversion into yarn on job work basis to the appellant. It has further been noticed by the investigating agency that out of 74892 kgs of Acrylic Fibre, the appellant have manufactured a quantity of 8520 kgs of yarn and returned the same to M/s Royal Industries Ltd. on proper documents and the balance quantity of yarn was not returned back to the supplier (100% EOU), but the balance quantity was cleared in the open market after discharge of appropriate duty of excise which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Royal Industries Ltd. the appellant after accounting for the same in their RG-1 register and in the other statutory records, have cleared the same on payment of the appropriate Central Excise duty. With this back drop of the facts, the learned Advocate has referred to the provisions of Section 112(b) and has contended that for invoking the provisions of penalty under this Section, the goods has to be liable by confiscation , since the appellant have dealt with the goods which were duly covered with the appropriate job work documents and the appellant have undertaken the mandated process of manufacturing of yarn and therefore, it cannot be held that the goods which have been dealt by the appellants were liable of confiscation. It has the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111, (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; [(ii) in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the highest.] It can be seen from the provisions of Section 112(b) as given above that for invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 the subject goods need to be made liable of confiscation . We find that so far as the appellant is concerned the goods were duly covered by prescribed job work documents and the same were also taken on record in the books of the accounts of the appellant, therefore, we find that the quantities which have been received by the appellant were not liable for confiscation as the same were covered by legitimate documentation. It has also been the matter of record that all the quantities have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
