TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice called upon the petitioner to show as to why :- i. the exemption benefit claimed and availed under the Central Excise Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 Serial No.255 in respect of 17 bills of entry as detailed in worksheet-I to the show cause notice, should not be denied and the corresponding duty on merits be demanded as per the quantification made in the said worksheet; ii. consequently, the differential duty amounting to Rs. 61,26,333/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs twenty six thousand three hundred and thirty three only) in respect of the 17 bills of entry as detailed in worksheet-I to the show cause notice should not be demanded in terms of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; iii. interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be recovered on the differential duty amounting to Rs. 61,26,332/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs twenty six thousand three hundred and thirty two only) in respect of 17 bills of entry as detailed in worksheet-I to the show cause notice evaded by them; iv. the declared description of the impugned goods imported vide 17 bills of entry as mentioned in column no.5 of the worksheet-I to this notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,10,673/- (Rupees seven crores sixty nine lakhs ten thousand six hundred and seventy three only) as detailed in worksheet-II to this notice (excluding the value of the refurbished goods seized at their two godowns mentioned supra) and not available for seizure should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), Section 111(m) and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 17 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 read with Section 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 for importing refurbished goods and for wrong availment of the notification benefit; x. the remaining impugned goods imported and by the importer totally valued at Rs. 18,20,274/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs twenty thousand two hundred and seventy four only) and not available for seizure as detailed in worksheet-II to this notice (excluding the value of the seized goods mentioned supra and the value of the refurbished goods) should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 for wrong availment of n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of Customs Duty in this case is settled at Rs. 61,26,333/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs twenty six thousands three hundred and fifty three only). As this amount stands paid by the applicant as confirmed by the Revenue, no further liability subsists in this regard. ii. I NTEREST: The interest liability is settled at Rs. 3,78,852/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy eight thousands eight hundred and fifty two only). As this amount stands paid by the applicant as confirmed by the Revenue, no further liability subsists in this regard. iii. F INE: The refurbished goods seized from the godown premises of the applicant firm at Bangaluru totally valued at Rs. 91,93,230/- are confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d), Section 111(m) and Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 17 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 read with Section 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. iv. The goods (other than the refurbished goods0 seized from the godown premises of the applicant at Bangaluru totally valued at Rs. 14,72,634/- a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Show Cause Notice and grants immunity in excess of the above amount. x. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench imposes a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on Shri Jayamuni Rao, Managing Director of M/s.Sogo Synergy Pvt Ltd, Bangalore - co-applicant - under the provisions invoked in the Show Cause Notice and grants immunity in excess of the above amount. xi. P ROSECUTION: Subject to the payment of the above mentioned amounts, the applicant and the co-applicant are granted immunity from Prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, in as far as this case is concerned. xii.The above mentioned amounts of Redemption fine and penalties are to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the absolute confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 91,93,230/- which were destroyed in the fire accident without any corresponding relief to the petitioner for redemption fine as was done in the goods other than the refurbished goods which valued at Rs. 14,72,634/-. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the said order primarily on the ground that the Insurance claim settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner is entitled to have the order of Settlement Commission modified to the extent it is against the petitioner. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited, (2011) 4 SCC 635, it has been held as follows:- 22. An order passed by the Settlement Commission could be interfered with only if the said order is found to be contrary to any provisions of the Act. So far as the findings of fact recorded by the Commission or question of facts are concerned, the same is not open for examination either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court. In the present case the order of the Settlement Commission clearly indicates that the said order, particularly, with regard to the imposition of simple interest @ 10% per annum was passed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 but the High Court wrongly interpreted the said Rule and thereby arrived at an erroneous finding. So far as the second issue with respect to interest on Rs. 50 lakhs is concerned, the same being a factual issue should not have been gone into by the High Court exercising the writ jurisdiction and the High Court should not have substituted its own o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t even though such orders should have deterred the petitioner from importing such refurbished hard disk. The petitioner however continued with the charade and gambled with the law. 15. The petitioner ought to have therefore considered it to be lucky not once but atleast four times. It cannot get more avaricious and expect the court to lend its olive branch when there is no irregularity in the impugned order. On the other hand, the first respondent Settlement Commission has shown mercy on the petitioner by allowing substantial benefit to the petitioner. 16. The facts also indicate that goods valued Rs. 7,69,10,763/- and Rs. 18,20,274/- were not available for confiscation as the petitioner had already sold the refurbished hard disk and taken advantage. The first respondent Settlement Commission has therefore refrained from ordering confiscation of the goods or imposing redemption fine as they were not available for confiscation. 17. The first respondent Settlement Commission has ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods which were in the custody of the petitioner which were allegedly lost in the fire accident in the petitioner's godown in Bangalore. The goods would h....