TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008, being filed by the appellant. Proforma invoice was addressed to Amul by the foreign supplier, based on the purchase order place by Amul on the foreign supplier. The appellants were only the consignees for the impugned machines and were not the owners. Moreover, as per the job work agreement entered into by the appellant and Amul their job worker, Amul was the owner of the impugned goods. The said machines were wrongly cleared by the appellant without paying duties of customs to the tune of Rs.1,41,78,027/-. By availing the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003 for the machines, but without having fulfilled the conditions of the said notification. The matter was adjudicated by the proper officer after issue of notice and following the due procedure. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the demand for duty of Rs 1,41,78,027/- as assessed in the ex-bond Shipping Bill, along with interest and imposed penalties. She did not confiscate the impugned goods. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us in appeal. 3. No cross objections have been filed by the respondent. 4. We have heard Ms. J Ragini learned advocate on behalf of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mports) Raigad reported in 2015 (324) ELT 656 (SC) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 2015 (323) ELT 644 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company reported in 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC). She prayed that the order may be upheld. 6. We find that the issues for determination are; (a) whether the impugned goods are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003 (b) whether the extended time limit for issue of show cause notice was correct. 7. To answer the issue at para 6 (a) it would be necessary to examine the legal provisions involved in the dispute which are cited at para 10 of the impugned order and are reproduced below; "Relevant Foreign Trade Policy / Notification No. / Legal Provisions (A) Para 6.4(a) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004 - 2009 provides for allowing the E.O Unit to source the capital goods from foreign / domestic leasing company without payment of duties of customs, in addition, to the sourcing of capital goods through direct import. (B) Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2006 as amended allows an E.O. Unit to procure importe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supply to EOU's do not qualify for the exemption, a facility has been provided by the Exim policy for the domestic leasing company to jointly file the import documents along with the EOU to enable the import of the capital goods free of duty. Consequently, the bond for fulfilment of the conditions of the exemption notification has also to be executed by both the persons. 10. The main charges made out by Revenue against the present import are that; (a) import documents have not been filed jointly by the appellant-EOU and the owner-importer of the goods, Amul. (b) the bond for fulfilment of the conditions of the exemption notification has also not been executed jointly by the appellant and Amul (c) the agreement between the appellant and Amul is not one between a lessor - lessee but between a principal manufacturer and a job worker. There is no provision for consideration i.e. amount of leasing rent, for leasing out the machines in the said agreement. Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 says an agreement without consideration is void and cannot be enforced in a court of law. However, it is seen that the learned Commissioner in the impugned order has noted that the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been eligible for the exemption. Similarly, if Amul had jointly filed a Bill of Entry and executed a bond along with the appellant, they (Amul) too would have been eligible for the exemption. Moreover the learned Commissioner in the order has noted that the impugned goods have been received and put to use by the EOU and hence she did not find any grounds to confiscate the same, only strengthens the appellants plea that the impugned goods were put to proper use and were hence eligible for the benefits of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003. Revenue is also not aggrieved with the non-confiscation of the impugned goods. In the given circumstances the parties could have been given a fixed time to comply with the bond condition. This being so the benefits of the notification cannot be totally denied to the goods. A penalty for the violation of bond condition, would suffice. 13. We now examine the query at para 6 (b) above as to whether invoking the extended time limit for issue of show cause notice was correct. We find considerable force in the views of the appellant that suppression of facts cannot be alleged by the department as the lease agreement was given to the Superin....