9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o far as levy of penalty for violation of certain terms and conditions of 100% Exemption to the above company vide Notification No. 52/03-CG dt. 31-3-2003 issued under the Customs Act of 1962 (hereinafter in short 'Act). In so far as other two appellants are concerned, they have challenged the penalty imposed upon them u/sec. 110(o) of the Act for non-complying with the terms and conditions of Notification granting exemption in favour of the applicant in the first appeal referred to supra and further direction issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec. 112(b) of the Act for confiscating of the goods framing certain substantial questions of law which are subsequently re-framed by the learned counsel for the appellants by filing a memo dt. 2-3-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by recording a finding holding that transporting 100% duty free imported goods in favour of the appellant-Company in the first appeal to use the same as input goods for manufacture of 100% export goods with certain terms and conditions, the same is violated by it. The Adjudicating Authority while demanding the customs duty has invoked condition No. 3(d)(I)(ii) of the Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 as amended read with Section 72(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also condition No. 4(a)(ii) the Notification No. 22/2003-Central Excise dated 31-3-2003 as amended. After satisfying the material evidence on record by the Assessing Officer has held, that the goods obtained duty free by the appellant-company have been diverted to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er granted in its favour in respect of raw material obtained by it at the time of importing the goods in favour of the Company to facilitate it to manufacture the goods by using 100% duty free imported goods to export the same to foreign countries and earn foreign exchange. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant Shri K.S. Ravishankar, submits that both customs, excise duty and penalty levied upon the company and its Chief Executive Officer is erroneous in law. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the Appellate Tribunal while considering the case put forth before it by the company. Therefore, the learned counsel requests this Court to answer the re-framed substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and requests this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous for non-consideration of the material evidence produced by the appellant before the Assessing Authority wherein he has stated that he had no knowledge that imported goods received by him are supplied to the Company in contravention of terms and conditions of the Notification No. 52/02? 5.With reference to the said legal contention Mr. Shashikanth, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Assessing Authority in C.S.T.A. No. 31/2007 has sought to justify the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and further it is contended that it has reduced penalty imposed upon the appellant from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- which amount is very nominal and not ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions granted by the Department. The exporter of the Company was required to utilise those 100% duty free imported goods as raw materials for the purpose of manufacturing of goods to export it to foreign countries to earn foreign exchange to the country. The explanation offered by the company to the show cause notice and the statement given before the Assessing Authority that those goods were given to M/s. Chakrapani Vyapar Private Ltd., is not for sale but Company has borrowed the raw materials from it against the goods manufactured for 100% export. Therefore, it has admitted that there was contravention of the terms and conditions of the exemption granted in favour of the appellant in CSTA No. 2/2008, but still the duty free raw mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions of the Notification dated 21-03-2002 is also within the knowledge of the appellant in CSTA No. 31/2007 that a supplier Company is 100% E.O.U. and the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with regard to concurrent finding of fact is that the possessor Company had the knowledge of receiving the 100% duty free imported goods. The said finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal and reduced penalty imposed on the appellant in C.S.T.A. No. 31/2007. Therefore, we do not find any ground urged by the learned counsel Mr. Gururaj in this appeal are tenable in law, and therefore there is no need for us to interfere with the order of penalty imposed upon the Director of the company which has received 100% exported goods from the company. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
