2016 (5) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is that an intelligence was received that the appellant was involved in using bogus fictitious 5 ARE-1s showing fictitious proprietorship unit viz. M/s. Siddhi Creative, Boiser, Thane, of Shri Pinakin N. Ghadiyali (hereinafter referred to as supporting manufacturer) for effecting exports with the mala fide intention of claiming fraudulent Central Excise Benefits. In respect of goods valued at Rs. 67,35,550/- and duty of Rs. 5,49, 621/-, the purported supporting manufacturer was registered with Central Excise authorities at Boiser fraudulently. However, there was evidence that no manufacturing activities ever took place in the registered factory premises and no goods were purchased/brought/manufactured or sold in the said unit of the suppo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for the imposition of redemption fine. Aggrieved by the impugned orders both appellants filed these appeals seeking waiver of penalty. 3. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty on the appellant company was imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the reason that the goods were liable for confiscation in terms of Section 113(d) and Section 113(i) of the Customs Act. In the present case, the appellant is merchant exporters who have procured the goods from the manufacturer under the cover of ARE.1s. The goods before being permitted to be exported are subject to verification and permitted for export after customs supervision and container sealing. The appellant have bonafidle purchased ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urer has not manufactured the goods which were supplied to the appellant. Hence, the export document such as ARE.1 was wrongly issued, consequently the material particular of the ARE-1 was misdeclared in shipping bill of the appellant. Thus, they committed the offence in regard to Section 113(i) and therefore the penalty was correctly imposed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the penalty was imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act have committed an offence falling under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Act, the same are reproduced below: "Section 113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported etc.- The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation:- ....