Tribunal upholds service tax demand for diverting duty-free goods

The Tribunal upheld the order confirming a service tax demand under Sections 28(1) and 72 of the Customs Act 1962, along with penalties, against parties involved in diverting duty-free goods into the domestic market instead of using them for manufacturing export goods. The penalties imposed were deemed reasonable and not arbitrary, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation under Sections 28(1) and 72 of the Customs Act 1962, diversion of duty-free goods, penalties imposed on various parties.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 33,14,194 under Sections 28(1) and 72 of the Customs Act 1962, along with interest and penalties. The dispute arose from the diversion of duty-free goods by M/s Oriental Enterprises, which were supposed to be used for manufacturing export goods but were instead diverted into the domestic market. The primary adjudicating authority confirmed the duty amount against M/s Ganesh Overseas Inc., imposed penalties on various individuals, and appropriated security deposits. The appellants contended that they were not involved in clearing goods to M/s Ganesh Overseas and claimed innocence.

During the hearing, the appellants did not provide representation or request an adjournment. The Department representative argued that the impugned goods did not reach the intended destination, and customs duty was rightfully recoverable. The appellants failed to produce proper transport documents, and their lack of participation in the adjudication process at the primary level was highlighted.

The Tribunal considered the Revenue's contentions and reviewed the facts. It was established that there were discrepancies in transport documents related to the supply of duty-free goods. The Manager of M/s Oriental Enterprises admitted to making incorrect entries at the proprietor's behest. The statements and verifications indicated that the duty-free goods were diverted into the domestic market, making them liable for confiscation. Consequently, penalties were imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found the penalties reasonable and not arbitrary, upholding the primary adjudicating authority's decision. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

---