TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yan, Member (T) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - Appeal No. C/522/2001 is against (a) demand of interest on duty (b) confiscation of goods with imposition of redemption fine and (c) imposition of penalty. The appellants had imported certain capital goods under EPCG scheme and had declared the same under two bills of entry dated 29-3-1993 and 13-12-1993 on payment of duty at concessional rate in terms of Customs Notification No. 160/92, dated 20-4-1992. Under the scheme, they were liable to export their products and discharge their export obligation in 5 years. The export products were 'timer' and 'timer movements'. Before exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, allowed redemption of the goods against payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 125 of the Act. In the present appeal, the importer has not challenged the demand of duty. Their challenge is against the redemption fine and penalty. 2. In Appeal No. C/529/2001 filed by the same party, the essential facts of the case are similar to those of the above bill. In this case, in adjudication of a similar show-cause notice, the original authority confirmed a demand of differential duty of Rs. 4,87,297/- against the appellants in terms of condition no. (iii) of Customs Notification No. 160/92 ibid read with para 38 of the EXIM Policy 1992-97 in respect of capital goods imported by them under an EPCG licence and cleared under a bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia Pavings Overseas v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2007 (219) E.L.T. 310 (Tri.-Bang.)]. Learned counsel also argued that, there being no provision in the Customs Act or in the above notification for levy of interest on any amount of duty recovered in terms of the notification, the appellants were not liable to pay any such interest. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the Tribunal's decision in Philips (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2001 (137) E.L.T. 697 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. Though, in Appeal No. C/529/2001, the appellants had challenged the demand of duty also, the learned counsel did not press it. We have heard the learned SDR, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 4. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1) the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods." 5. In Appeal No. C/529/2001, the question arises as to whether the appellants are liable to pay interest on the amount of duty. This question does not arise in the other appeal. The question was considered in Philips (India) Ltd. case and it was held that there was no provision in the Customs Act or in Notification No. 160/92-Cus. for levy of interest on any amount of duty recovered on the ground of breach of condition attached to the notification. In that case, though the demand of duty on capital goods imported by the party und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
