9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them without payment of duty in terms of exemption contained in 204/1992. Out of this quantity, 176 tons was imported through the port of Nhava Sheva and it is this quantity that the Commissioner in his order impugned in this appeal and this Tribunal is concerned with. The officers visited on 27-9-1997 the factory of the appellant and its office and seized various documents relating to imports and exports. The officers also noted that on that date there was no aluminium imported either in the form of ingots extruded product was not available in the appellant's factory or office. The appellant had exported 14.981 tons of extrusions out of the imported material. Mukhopadyay, the executive of the appellant, Vidyasagar, managing director in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these statements were retracted. In addition, no shipping bills showing export have been produced. It is not therefore possible to interfere with the finding in this regard. 3. It is next contended that even if the 37 tons exported in October and November were manufactured out of aluminium other than the imported quantity it should still be taken towards the export performance. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of Standard Industries v. CCE - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 124. 4. In Standard Industries, the Tribunal was of the opinion that notification 159/99 was worded permitted export made out of material other than the imported material to be accounted towards export obligation. On this view and on its further view that on the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such factors as financial hardship filed in export prices etc. If that were the case, it would have made these facts known to the licensing authority or the customs official and asked for permission to pay duty and dispose of the goods or seek extension of time or export. It has not done any of these things. It is not disputed that Vidyasagar the managing director was responsible for the conduct of affairs of the company including the sale relating to exports and sale of the export in the market. Penalty was therefore rightly imposed on him having regard to the duty involved exceeding 30 lakhs penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on him is not incommensurate with the gravity of the offence. 7. Demand for interest under Section 28AB of the Act is cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
