TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar No. 15/10/2009 no prohibition has been imposed against deciding the application for compounding of offences which were earlier rejected on the technical ground being outside the purview, nor there is any embargo that if the application has been rejected earlier the same cannot be entertained again even if it falls within the purview of compounding of offences as per the guidelines of 2009. A perusal of the said circular/guidelines makes it clear that it is not applicable only qua those case which has been specifically excluded in that circular/guidelines from the purview of compounding. It is not the case of the Appellant that the offence committed by him is no longer an offence. His only plea is that now the offence under the Provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Licences dated 27.07.89. As per the lincences, the imported material was to be utilized for manufacture of thread protectors for pipes to be supplied to the O.N.G.C. The importer claimed and was granted benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 513/86-Cus dated 30.12.86 which allows import of raw materials and components required for manufacture of goods supplied to O.N.G.C. On certain specific information, D.R.I. investigated the matter and during the course of investigation it was revealed that as required by licences, the threads protectors supplied to O.N.G.C. were not made of Stainless Steel, and the goods supplied to O.N.G.C. were ordinary Carbon Steel threads protectors, which were procured locally by the importer. Out of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y DRI, Mumbai under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code 1860 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai being Criminal Complaint No. 330/CS/1992. The penalty amount of ₹ 10,000/- as per the Adjudicating Order dated 30.03.2004 was paid by the Appellant on 13/09/2004. Later on in the Year, 2005, compounding and the Offences Rules,2005 were enacted and thereafter vide Circular No. 54/2005-CUS dated 30/12/2005 guidelines were issued by the board excluding certain offences from the purview of compounding and offences under the provisions of IPC was also mentioned therein. The Appellant filed an application under the said Rules for compounding of offence on 10/02/2006 but since the offence committed by the Appellant is pun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng upon which the earlier application of the Appellant was rejected, was held as ultra virus to the Customs Act, 1962 and rules made therein by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide order dated 25/10/2007 in Writ Petition No. 1884 of 2007 reported in 2008 (223) ELT 19 Bom. and it is due to that reason another Circular of 2009 was issued. The purpose of compounding of offences against payment of compounding amount is to prevent litigation and encourage early settlement of dispute. In the guidelines issued vide Circular No. 15/10/2009 no prohibition has been imposed against deciding the application for compounding of offences which were earlier rejected on the technical ground being outside the purview, nor there is any embargo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
