TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the State of Andhra Pradesh. But it was found that the said contract had been sub-contracted to M/s Sew on 03.02.2007, prior to the date of filing the Bill of Entry. It is admitted by the appellant that after clearance of the goods from Mumbai Port, the same were transferred to Lonikhand, Pune, though the lorry receipts were issued for Hyderabad, to be utilised in construction of road projects awarded by Pune Municipal Corporation - The adjudicating authority observed that such Projects / Contract awarded by Pune Municipal Corporation would not qualify for duty exemption under the notification. The appellant had filed the Bill of Entry on 13.12.2007 for use of the machine at Nagpur - Hyderabad section and Hyderabad Bangalore section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were directly sent to and installed and used at Lonihkand Taluka, Haveli, Pune, instead of NHAI Project at Hyderabad. A show-cause notice dated 09.12.2010 was issued, proposing to deny the benefit of the exemption notification, consequent demand of duty along with interest, confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalty on the appellant s Company and its Managing Director Shri Mallikarjun Basantrao Patil. By the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Customs (Import) has denied the benefit of the exemption notification, confiscated the imported machine, with redemption fine of ₹ 45 lakhs, confirmed the demand of customs duty of ₹ 68,54,082/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If, - (a) the goods are imported by (i) the Ministry of Surface Transport, or (ii) a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, by the Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory; or (iii) a person who has been named as a sub-contractor in the contract referred to in (ii) above for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, by Public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the Bill of Entry. It is admitted by the appellant that after clearance of the goods from Mumbai Port, the same were transferred to Lonikhand, Pune, though the lorry receipts were issued for Hyderabad, to be utilised in construction of road projects awarded by Pune Municipal Corporation. The adjudicating authority observed that such Projects / Contract awarded by Pune Municipal Corporation would not qualify for duty exemption under the notification. In this context, the ld. Counsel submitted that NHAI by letter dated 02.02.2007 had informed the Project Director, NHAI, Hyderabad regarding subletting of contract. We find that these documents were not placed before the lower authorities, even at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case. We find that the Appellant M/s Apco had imported the Hot mix plant under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No.230. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the plant was never utilized as provided under the conditions of the notification. The contention of the appellant that they were eligible for multiple road construction contract issued by Govt. of U.P. for different road construction sites does not mean that the condition of the notification has been followed. In fact the plant was never used for such contracts as canvassed by the Appellant during the importation of goods and claiming exemption. The Appellant has not adduced single evidence that they have followed the conditions of the notification. They declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Manager (F A), we find that he was only concerned with the taxation matter to the extent of availing benefit of exemption notification and was not concerned/ connected with the decision to use machine and his role in violation of condition is also not C/794-796,874/2010 9 visible. We are therefore of the view that he cannot be burdened with penalty. Resultantly, in view of our above findings, we uphold the impugned order in as much as it has confirmed demand, confiscation of goods and penalties against M/s Apco and Shri Anil Singh. However the penalty imposed upon Shri V. S. Rao is set aside. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. The Appeals filed by M/s Apco Infratech and Shri Anil Kumar Singh is rejected and the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
