TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decides in Favor of Shrimp Producer in Customs Dispute</h1> <h3>C.C.,C.E. And S. T-Guntur Versus Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Ltd.</h3> C.C.,C.E. And S. T-Guntur Versus Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Ltd. - 2018 (364) E.L.T. 1014 (Tri. - Hyd.) Issues:- Appeals against Order-in-Original No. CEX - 06/2005- Confirmation of demands and penalties imposed- Granting depreciation to the main appellant- Clearances of prawns and shrimp seed without payment of duties- Demand of customs duty on imported raw materials and capital goods- Invocation of extended period under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962- Abatement of appeal due to demise of an individual appellant- Dispute over demands raised against Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Limited- Clearance of shrimp seed to non-DTA- Demand of customs duty on missing capital goods- Argument on limitation- Confiscation of inputs and capital goods- Imposition of penaltyAnalysis:The judgment involves three appeals challenging Order-in-Original No. CEX - 06/2005, focusing on confirmation of demands and penalties. Appeal E/227/2006 by Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Limited contests demands and penalties, while E/275/2006 by an individual appellant challenges personal penalties. The Revenue's appeal, E/519/2006, disputes the granting of depreciation on capital goods. The main appellant, an EOU engaged in shrimp production, faced demands for clearing prawns without duties, violating notification terms, and importing raw materials and capital goods. The adjudicating authority upheld most demands but allowed depreciation on capital goods and imposed penalties.Regarding the clearances of prawns and shrimp seed, the Tribunal noted the law's evolution, setting aside demands pre-11.05.2001 but confirming post-amendment demands. The Tribunal rejected arguments against customs duty demands on inputs, emphasizing compliance with notification conditions. Disputes over missing capital goods were dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting theft or loss during floods, upholding demands. The Tribunal also rejected Revenue's appeal against depreciation, finding it aligned with Board Circular guidelines.On the limitation issue, the Tribunal upheld demands due to the appellant's violation of notification conditions, citing legal precedents. Confiscation of inputs and capital goods was deemed appropriate for non-compliance, with reasonable redemption fines imposed. The penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was reduced to Rs. 5.00 lakhs considering the total demand amount, distress faced by the appellant, and the interest of justice. The Tribunal disposed of all appeals, maintaining the penalty with the specified modification. Lastly, an individual appellant's appeal abated due to the appellant's demise during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 