TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....free imported and indigenous raw-materials for use in the manufacture of exported goods. During the period from 14-02-1996 to 16-02-1996 the appellants cleared 757 cartons of PTY and PFY for export to Nepal after observing the procedures under the law. It was found that the transporter diverted the goods to the quantity of 15,967.300 kgs in the local market. It was also found that the quantity of 16,420.600 kgs, the transporter attempted to divert in the local market, which was seized by the Central Excise Officers. 3. A show cause notice dated 14-8-1996 was issued to the appellants and its Director and the Transporters proposing demand of the Central Excise Duty on the finished goods and the customs duty on the raw materials along with in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erted in the local market. He is seriously contesting the demand of Customs duty on the raw materials, which were used in the manufacture of the final product. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal as under:- 1. Commissioner v/.s Sanjari Twisters reported in 2010 (255)ELT A15 (S.C.) 2. Dupont Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v/.s. Commissioner of C.Ex. Surat reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3. Bhagat Exports v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 545 (Tri. Ahmd.) 4. Goyal Industries v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 199 (Tri. Ahmd.) 5. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat v/s. Sanjari Twisters reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. (Tri. Ahmd.) &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no relation with the finished goods. He further submits that the goods were seized by the Central Excise Officers attempting to divert to the local market. So, the penalty and confiscation of the goods are legal and proper and the imposition of redemption fine is warranted. 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, for the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portions of the earlier Remand Order dated 24-10-2007 of the Tribunal are reproduced as below:- "We find that there is nothing on record to show that M/s. Sarla Polyester Ltd. was one of the conniving parties. In fact, it is seen that the entire consignment was cleared from the said appellant's factory after fulfilling the central excise and cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty imposed upon M/s. Sarla Polyester Ltd. under the provisions of Rule 209 and also under Rule 9(2) and penalty imposed upon Shri Krishna Jhunjhunwala under Rule 209-A. As regards personal penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed upon M/s. Dooars Transport Pvt. Ltd., we find that the role of the said transport company has clearly been brought on record and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the goods were being tampered with and subsequently cleared to the local market with the active connivance of the said transporter with the intending agent. We accordingly uphold the penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed upon M/s. Dooars Transport Pvt. Ltd." 8. The appellants are not contesting the demand of Central Excise Duty on the finished goods, which ....