2004 (8) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... private bonded warehouse licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was permitted to manufacture the said goods under bond as per Section 65 of the said Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalgaon division. The appellant company executed a bond with the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction for the due observance of the conditions laid down in the licence. Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Choudhary is the proprietor of the appellant company. 2. The officers of DGCEI collected intelligence that the unit was procuring duty free polyester yarn and diverting the same into DTA. A search of the premises revealed that a quantity of 6,138 kgs. polyester texturised yarn imported duty free under Notification 53/97....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the show cause notice issuing authority and the adjudicating authority. He argued that a Deputy Director of DGCEI has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice as he was not appointed as a proper officer. In any case when suppression with an intent to evade duty is alleged even under normal period of limitation to demand duty, the proper officer is the Commissioner who has to issue a notice and in this case a Deputy Director of DGCEI, had issued the notice; that warehousing licence was issued by an Assistant Commissioner and he is the proper officer to adjudicate the case and when Section 28 of the Customs Act was invoked, the officer who originally cleared the goods in the Customs House was the proper officer and not the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms officers; that DGCEI officers were also appointed as customs officers under Section 4 of the Customs Act; that the Commissioner has rightly imposed penalties under Section 11AC as the present case involves violation of both the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act that interest is demanded under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act read with Section 28AB of the Customs Act and, therefore, is tenable; that non-mention of a specific clause of Section 111 of the Customs Act is not fatal and that the order of the Commissioner is legal and proper and should be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the following case law filed by the learned advocate. (i)      CCE, Indore v. ONGC [19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the premises of the appellant under Section 111 of the Customs Act on the ground that they were not covered under any document evidencing clearance on payment of appropriate customs duty. We observe that it is a fact that the appellant did not offer any explanation as to where he acquired the goods from. The impugned goods were found in the appellant's possession. He would be the best person to know as to where he got the imported goods from. He failed to come out with any plausible explanation. The imported goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(k). It is true that the Commissioner failed to mention clause 'k' of Section 111 but that in itself is not fatal. It would have been a different matter had the goods not been liable....