TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort by M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries. They imported glycerine as against sorbitol which was used by them in the manufacture of the resultant export product. On sorbitol which had been procured by them from the indigenous market, they had availed of the Modvat credit under the Central Excise Law. M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries had fulfilled their export obligation and had imported glycerine under the advance licence and have made a declaration on the bill of entry that the goods will be used in the manufacture of export product and shall be taken to their factory. Exemption from duty was claimed under Notification 159/90 dated 30-3-1990 under which the raw material could be imported as replenishment for material used in the export pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir factory and part of these drums were recovered from the premises of M/s. Ratilal Hemraj which were seized and the remaining were sold by them in the market. Investigation also revealed that in fact the export was undertaken by M/s. Ratilal Hemraj as he was the one who collected DEEC book from the office of the CHA M/s. Shree Radhakrishna Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and paid the clearances charges to the CHA. In addition it was M/s. Ratilal Hemraj who had paid the BPT charges of Rs. 50,000/- Further Shri Vipul Parekh, partner of M/s. Ratilal Hemraj in his statement admitted that he had negotiated the import of the consignment with the indenter and had arrange for the import of consignment. The payment towards glycerine was also received by M/s. Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 111(o) with an option to M/s. Ratilal Hemraj to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 4 Lakhs only. A penalty of Rs. 30 Lakhs was imposed on M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries and penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs on M/s. Ratilal Hemraj. 5. In the present case, we are concerned with the appeal filed by Shri Ratilal Hemraj and are told by the advocate of the appellant that the appeal filed by M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries has been dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit order. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that in this case the import was made by M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries and there has been no sale or transfer of advance licence as had been alleged by the revenue, nor there is any evidence to tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purchaser of the goods the redemption fine cannot be recovered from them. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the CEGAT in their own case reported at 2004 (174) E.L.T. 365 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein penalty imposed on them was set aside and on similar grounds penalty on one Shri Yogesh Korani, who had purchased the goods was set aside. 7. The learned D.R. on the other hand submits that the appellants were the de facto importer as they have negotiated the import and paid for the BPT and clearing agent charges and have entered into sale prior to import and have only used the name of M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries. The sale price was lower than the landed cost and no bill was raised. Attention was invited to CESTAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries was the initial importer. It was he who had to comply with the condition of the advance licence issued to him and the condition of exemption notification No. 159/90 and since the same have been violated by him, the confiscation of the goods cannot be challenged by Shri Ratilal Hemraj. This view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sumant Sood (cited supra). M/s. Ratilal Hemraj will therefore have to suffer consequences of wrongful import and will liable to pay the redemption fine if he holds himself to be owner of the goods as per provision of Section 125 of the Customs Act which gives option to the person to pay fine from seized position or in custody the goods have been seized. The....