TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of Rs. 44,31,006/- besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,16,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act. He has also demanded interest @ 24% per annum from the date of import of the consignment till the date of payment on the duty demanded. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein had obtained licence bearing No. P/CG/2100700/C/XX/25/1l/EPCG, dated 27-8-1992 for a CIF value of Rs. 64,27,044/ under the EPCG scheme from the Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi and had imported capital goods at a concessional rate of Customs duty of 15% in terms of Customs Notification No. 160/92 dated 20-4-92 as amended subject to the conditions envisaged therein. The appellants were to export Air Purifiers for a total FOB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the export obligation. (b) Demand of interest is not sustainable as at the relevant time Notification No. 160/92 did not contain any such provision. The show cause notice demanded duty and hence the authority cannot traverse beyond the scope of show cause notice and demand interest. Payment of customs duty and any interest there on are governed by the provisions of the Customs Act and notifications issued thereunder and without any enabling provisions either in the related Act or in the Notification, the demand of interest is patently wrong. (c) Confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were unwarranted as these are not backed by rules. In support of the plea they cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situation, as seen from the records that in this case, in fact the appellants had filed bank guarantee and sought for extension of time to fulfil the export obligation. But in spite of their efforts, they could not succeed. We observe that identical case came up for consideration before the CEGAT, West Regional Bench, in the case of Philips India Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 697 wherein the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty was set aside. In that case also the same Notification i.e. No. 160/92-Cus. and Para 38 of the EXIM Policy was dealt with. We would also like to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, has held that "penalty will not also be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
