TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....870/-, and 200 Nos. of sewing machine lamps valued at Rs. 1,30,168/-, clandestinely to the other units belonging to the same group but situated in DTA without taking permission from the Asstt. Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner of Customs and without payment of the customs duty leviable on the goods as per condition (5) of Notification 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-97 as amended. Accordingly, the main applicant is alleged to have violated the conditions of the above said customs notification read with Sections 58, 59, 65, 71 and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, as well as Regulation 3 of the 'Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 1966'. A total duty of Rs. 29,32,103/- has been demanded, besides interest at the rate of 20% in terms of the above said Customs Notification read with Sec. 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. There is also a proposal to cancel the Private Bonded Warehouse Licence No. 16/97, dated 29-3-97, confiscate the 66 machines and 40 lamps allegedly removed clandestinely and hold the 200 Nos. of sewing machine lamps already removed clandestinely liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. There is a further proposal for imposition of penalty o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o interest is chargeable in respect of certain classes of warehoused goods, and accordingly, no interest would accrue on the duty due on the goods removed from the 100% EOU in this case. He further relied on Notification 67/95-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-11-95 on this issue. 4. Shri Sarvotham, the authorised Representative of the Revenue drew attention of the Bench to the comments already furnished by them vide their letter No. C. No. VIII/48/451/2001-Cus. (Prev.), dated 10-7-2002. He submitted that in the said report, the Respondent did not offer any comments in respect of submissions made in paras 21 and 23 in the settlement application and sought permission to tender the same. He went on to submit that the goods imported by the EOU have been utilized in the DTA for fulfilling the export orders of the DTA units as well, on which the DTA units have claimed drawback, in excess of the amount available to them in terms of CBEC Circular No. 31/2000-Cus., dated 20-4-2000, in respect of goods manufactured and exported by such DTA units. He concluded by saying that since the goods were imported and cleared availing the benefit of Customs Notification 53/97, immunity from interest can be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2002, Shri Sarvotham, Supdt. submitted that the machineries removed from the EOU without permission from Customs and without payment of customs duty were also utilized for meeting the export orders of the units in DTA, who have claimed higher drawback amount than admissible. But such an allegation is not found in the SCN. In the Circular 31/2000-Cus., dated 20-4-2000 issued by the CBEC on which Shri Sarvotham relied, the CBEC have, no doubt, clarified that the goods manufactured utilizing the idle capacity of EOU/EPZ units would be eligible for Brand Rate drawback, against duties suffered on inputs, on submission of proof of payment of duty. It is further mentioned that in such cases, drawback will be payable to DTA exporters under Rule 6(1) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 at the rate fixed on specific application. However, it is clear from a reading of the said Circular that the issue clarified therein is not on all fours with the facts of this case. The said circular deals with drawback claims of DTA units which export goods got manufactured by utilizing the idle capacity of an EOU. It does not refer to drawback claims of DTA units which export good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution. 10. Taking all the above into account, settlement is made in terms of sub-section (7) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 and in accordance with the following terms and conditions : (1) The total duty payable is settled at Rs. 29,32,103/- in terms of Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962. As seen from the SCN itself, the applicant has paid Rs. 28,79,165/- before the issue of SCN. The balance amount of Rs. 52,938/- has also been since paid vide TR 6 challan dated 24-7-2002. Accordingly, no further amount is due from the main applicant in this case. (2) The goods removed unauthorisedly in violation of the conditions of the notification are liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, this Bench grants immunity from payment of fine under Section 127H(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The seized goods shall be returned to the main applicant. (3) Immunity is granted to the main applicant, i.e., M/s. C.S. India, No. 135, 4th Main Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Town, West of Chord Road, Bangalore-560 044, in terms of Section 127H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 from payment of....