TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous countries on payment of duty under advanced licence scheme. They imported Butyl Acrylate Monomer from Singapore and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 73/2005-Cus., dated 22-7-2005 on the basis of certificates of origin issued under India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (ISCECA). It was seen that out of 900 MT of Butyl Acrylate Monomer imported M/s. JIL sold part of the cargo to the various parties in India on bond transfer basis as detailed below : S. No. Name of the buyer Quantity of butyl acrylate 1. M/s. Plasticisers Polymers Products, Silvassa 40 MT 2. M/s. Atulit Chemicals Products, Indore 50 MT 3. M/s. Soham Polymers Private Ltd. 40 MT 4. M/s. Crescent Chemsol Private Ltd, Vadodara 50 M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not their employee or agent. The appellants relied upon the following judgments: 1. Kalpataru Power Transmission v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 619 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 2. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 246 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 564 (Tri.-Del.) 4. Spic Organics Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Mad.) 5. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 477 (Tri.-Del.) 6. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pondicherry - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-Del.) 7. Hindustan Colas Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara-I - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 8. Bhanu IVRCL As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gin with an intention to avail the concessional rate of duty. The argument that the suppliers from foreign countries were responsible for the misdeclaration is only a ploy to shift the onus to others. In common sense also it will be proved that no goods were imported from a foreign supplier without knowing the genuineness of the supplier. And the importer was well aware of the provisions of Notification No. 73/2005 and availed the concessional rate with an intention to evade payment of duty. The argument of the appellant that the preferential certificate of origin of goods issued by the Director General Customs, Singapore which was accepted by the Customs Authority of India and they had not suspected such certificates is no argument at all.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This notification shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of August, 2005." 5. A careful reading of the notification will show that the exemption under the notification is to be claimed and the country of origin of Republic of Singapore in accordance with the provisions of Rules of Origin contained in Notification No. 59/2005-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-7-2005 is to be proved. This fact later proved to be correct that the ultimate supplier M/s. Marubeni Chemical Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. who had supplied the goods through M/s. NU Alliance Pvt. Ltd. informed that the certificate of origin should not have been issued. It is also significant that the appellant has never disputed the basic allegation in the show cause notice that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It clearly mentioned that the certificate was obtained by fraud and misdeclaration. In the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority had gone through different judgments relied upon by the noticee at length. On consideration of the analysis of the judgments of the original adjudicating authority (Para 13.3) we concur with his finding that these decisions relied upon by the assessee are not applicable in the present case. 8. Another point which was raised by the appellant is that they were not a party to this fraud as they were not aware of the tainted nature of the certificate of the origin. 9. The Tribunal in the case of DSM Anti-Infectives India Ltd. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 250 (Tri.-Del.) has answered this plea. The CEST....