2017 (10) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inst vide show cause notice dated 2nd February 2006 for recovery of basic customs duty, special additional duty and anti- dumping duty aggregating Rs. 80,11,883 of Customs Act, 1962, interest thereon, and the penalties under section 114A and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 which is confirmed vide the impugned order-in-original no.01/COMMNR. GOA/CX/2006 dated 27th June 2006 of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa leading to this appeal before us. 2. The assessee-appellant is a manufacturer of pig iron in blast furnace by reduction of iron ore with metallurgical coke; for the supply of the latter for conversion of imported coal by partial combustion, an entity by the name and style of M/s Sesa Kembla Coal Company Ltd was set up adjacent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able with interest thereon and penalties imposed under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 against appellant-assessee and under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 against the other appellants. 4. It is the contention of the appellants that the adjudicating authority had no reasonable grounds to conclude that this quantity of imported materials had been diverted from the factory of assessee- appellant and that a demand confirmed on such presumptions and speculations was not sustainable. Countering this submission, Learned Authorised Representative relied upon a number of decisions including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Madras and Others v. D Bhoormull [1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC)] and that of the Tribunal in AN Guha & ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d out to us that the show cause notice proceeds on the assumption of contravention of various provisions of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 for having diverted imported goods and manipulated the records to portray consumption within the factory of assessee-appellant. From a perusal of the records, this would appear to be so. It is also seen from the impugned order that liability is crystalised for the contravention of the Rules supra. Though the impugned order does make passing references to the non-conformity with notification no.51/2000-Cus dated 27 April 2000, the contents are focused on the contravention of the Rules supra. 8. We find that the imported goods were ent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t promotion does envisage complete and total exemption and no purpose is served by recourse to exemption under the notification for manufacture of excisable goods. There is, therefore, much justification in the contention of the assessee-appellant that the notice seeks to fastened liability on them without sufficient basis. This is an aspect that the adjudicating Commissioner should have devoted some attention to but failed. The impugned order has not examined the specific provisions in notification no. 51/2000-Cus that had been violated by the assessee-appellant. The disposal of allegedly diverted nut coke by the alleged recipient has not been considered in the impugned order; in our opinion, this is critical to establishing non-conformi....