TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 111 with option for its redemption against payment of fine (equal to duty) under Section 125 of the Act and (e) imposition of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act. The second and third appeals filed by the Managing Director and a Director of the company are against the penalties of Rs. 20 lakhs each imposed on them. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:- KCL had imported six autoconers (capital goods) duty-free under Notification No. 13/1981-Cus in June 1996 for their 100% export-oriented unit (EOU). These machines were installed and used in the factory of production of cotton yarn. As two of these machines developed problems in 2002, KCL on 5/2/2002 applied for the Development Commissioner's permis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Duty @5% on (A) and (B) whichever is Higher, i.e. 5% on 1,00,61,448/- 5,03,073/- Actual amount of Customs duty remitted vide T.R. 6 challan No. 19/08.10.2003 5,17,869/- The above quantification of duty was subjected to scrutiny in the Department. The Assistant Commissioner in a letter dated 31.10.2003 informed the Joint Commissioner (Hqrs), Guntur that KCL had shortpaid duty to the extent of Rs.1,52,894/- by depreciating the value of the machinery for a longer period than the period from the date of commencement of commercial production to the date of payment of duty. In December 2003, in reply to the Superintendent's queries, KCL submitted that they had achieved positive net foreign exchange (NFE) as on 31.3.2003. In September 2004,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2 (two) autoconers, as detailed supra and had cleared the aforesaid 2 (two) Autoconers, by fraud, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts and contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Rules made thereunder, the provisions of the EXIM Policy and the terms and conditions of the Bond dated 3.7.2000 and the conditions of notification No.13/81-Cus., as discussed and detailed supra ; (iii) M/s KCL are liable to pay interest on the aforesaid duty at (i) above, under Sections 28 AB and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the terms and conditions of the B-11 Bond dated 3.7.2000; (iv) M/s KCL are liable to mandatory penalty equal to the Customs duty at (i) above, under Section 114 A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns 68 and 71 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in contravention of the conditions of notification No. 13/81-Cus and the B-17 bond dated 3.7.2000 as detailed supra, by reasons of which, they knew or had reason to believe that the aforesaid goods are liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962; (vii) M/s SJSML have acquired/possessed, purchased/procured the aforesaid 2 (two) autoconers without payment of appropriate duties of Customs and in contravention of the provisions of Sections 68 and 71 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in contravention of the conditions of notification No.13/81-Cus and the B-17 bond dated 3.7.2000 as detailed supra, by reasons of which, they knew or had reason to believe that the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 251 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 read with List 31 appended thereto; (b) no amount of additional duty of customs was payable as the effective rate of this duty at serial No. 251 ibid was 'Nil'; (c) special additional duty was also not payable as this duty was not leviable on the date of import of the goods; (d) the payment of duty on 8.10.2003 as central excise duty and not as customs duty was only a clerical error; (e) the extended period of limitation was not invocable and any penalty not imposable in the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner of Customs, after hearing them, rejected their contentions except that BCD was correctly calculated as above. The present appeals are against his decision. 4. Heard both s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apex court, is squarely applicable. In that case, SAD was demanded on certain capital goods (imported in 1993 when there was no levy of SAD) on its clearance from a bonded warehouse when SAD was leviable in terms of the Finance Act, 1996. The Tribunal held that M/s. Ashima Fabrics (100% EOU) was not liable to pay SAD on the capital goods as there was no levy of that duty at the time of its importation. In the result, the demand of CVD and SAD raised on the assessee in the present case is not sustainable. 6. As it is not in dispute that the machinery was dismantled under the supervision of the Central Excise Range officers and cleared from the factory as scrap, in our view, it should be considered to be a DTA clearance by the EOU attracting....