2019 (5) TMI 1421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ose the penalty. As per operating portion of the impugned order in clause (iv) and (v), the operating portion of the order is therefore contrary to the findings given by the Adjudicating Authority in sub-para (a) and (b) of Para 49. 2. Shri Amit Mishra, Ld. Joint Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the appellant -Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal. He also submits that the Commissioner while passing the order did not give any finding and order regarding proposals for demanding interest made in the show cause notice and therefore, the order to that extent is also not correct and legal. 3. Shri Willingdon Christian, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant invited my attention to Para 47 and also to sub-para (e) of Para....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid goods placed under seizure at M/s. Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Limited, Kim, Surat. It has been ordered .by this office letter of even no. dated 23.04.2003 for the provisional release of seized goods a. Polyester Filament Yarn (75/36) SDY(50/36) weighing 29861.00 Kgs. valued at Rs. 2373514.00 oh execution of bond for full value of the seized goods backed by Bank Guarantee (open-ended) Of 25% of the value of the imported goods. Accordingly the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range: IV, Div: Olpad, Dist: Surat-Il vide his F. No. R-IV/OA/Kansal-EOU/07.08,2002 dated 10.07.2003 released the above referred goods provisionally on execution of 3-11 (3cc) Bond for full value of Rs. 23,73,514/- of the said seized goods backed by Bank Guarantee of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Polyester filament Yarn totally valued at Rs. 23,73,514/- (MV) was liable to confiscation under the provision of Section 111(j) and 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the said EOU was the firm who imported goods under seizure under the said ECU Scheme and was therefore liable to penal action under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. (b) Shri Rakesh Kansal, Director of M/s. Kansal Texo-Tube Pvt. Limited, was the person who had removed and sold the duty free goods i.e. Polyester Filament Yarn imported under the 100% EOU Scheme to the said M/s. Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Limited in violation of the conditions of Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 03.06.1997 read with the provisions of Sections 71 of Customs Act, 1962. This implies that Shri Rakes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty that in Para 47 he stated that penalty is not imposable and at the same time in Para 49 (a) and (b) he is taking a 'U' turn stating that respondent is not liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Therefore, there is clear error in the order-in-original in so far as the Commissioner did not impose penalty on both the appellants. As regards the grounds for interest not demanded by the Commissioner in the impugned order, I find that Commissioner has given findings in Para 48, which is reproduced below:- "48. Further, it is noticed that the appropriate duty involved thereon has been paid by the unit on 16.08.2002 and 17.08.2002 as discussed hereinabove. Thus, the duty payment has been voluntarily paid within a short sp....