TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Act, confessed to clandestine removal of MS bars of different sizes valued at Rs. 2,04,679/- to one M/s. Hari Om Steels on 06-02-2006. He also volunteered to pay duty on such goods. In a subsequent show-cause notice, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner proposed: (a) to demand duty of Rs. 33,404/- from the appellants under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act and appropriate the amount already paid, towards such demand; (b) to confiscate the above goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; and (c) to impose penalty on the party under Section 11 AC of the Act read with Rule 25 ibid. (ii) The above proposals were contested by the party in their reply to the show-cause notice. They resisted confiscation on the ground that the goods were not physically available for confiscation. It was submitted that, for confiscation of any goods, it must be in the department's possession or must, have been released at the request of the assessee against bond supported by bank guarantee. On this basis, the assessee contended that the goods in question could not be confiscated and, for that matter, redemption fine could not be imposed. These and other arguments o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Fuel Oil and Diesel Oil were drawn in the presence of the importer's representative and CHA. The test report on the sample of Diesel Oil matched the importer's declaration. But the test report on the sample of Fuel Oil stated that, in view of its composition (Ash content of 1.1% by weight, Sediment of 1.1 % by weight and Water content of 33.3% by weight), it could be considered as "off specification material/waste oil". The explanation given by the party vis-a-vis the test report on what was declared by them as Fuel Oil did not convince the customs authorities. After recording statements of the importer's authorized signatory and conducting allied enquiries, the department issued a show-cause notice to them proposing inter alia to confiscate 87.345 MTs of what was declared as fuel oil, under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. This and other proposals were contested. In their written submissions, the importer contended inter alia that, as the Bill of Entry had been assessed and out-of-charge given under Section 47 of the Customs Act, it was not open to the department to issue show-cause notice for confiscation of the goods under Section 124 of the Act. These and oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 112 of the Act. After hearing the party, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and also imposed a fine of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of confiscation. It also imposed a penalty on the importer. The party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter set aside the redemption fine in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) and reduced the quantum of penalty. Aggrieved by the appellate Commissioner's decision, the department went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The department approached the High Court in appeal against the Tribunal's decision. One of the questions of law raised in that appeal was whether redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act could be imposed where the goods were neither available for confiscation nor cleared under bond/undertaking. The Hon'ble High Court, after considering the apex Court's judgment in Weston Components case (supra), held that any redemption fine could not be imposed in the absence of the goods which had already been released by the customs authorities to the importer without execution of any bond/undertaking by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e recoverability of duty from a hospital in respect of medical equipment confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act with option for redemption of the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Act on the ground of breach of conditions of Customs Notification No. 64/88, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Revenue was entitled to recover such duty whether or not the owner of the goods exercised the option to redeem the goods. 8. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s. Venus Enterprises against the Madras High Court's judgment had been admitted by the Supreme Court. At this stage, the learned JCDR informed us that the SLP was dismissed. We have found, on record, a copy of the Supreme Court's order dated 03-01-2007 dismissing the SLP. 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel; the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in Raja Impex case (supra), has rendered decision on identical issue. One of the substantial questions of law placed before the High Court by the department was whether redemption fine under Section 125 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the same is hereby dismissed." (emphasis supplied.) 10. We have also particularly noted a decision of the Tribunal (cited by the learned advocate) which stands upheld by the Supreme Court. In Chinku Exports case, the Tribunal had held the redemption-fine-related issue against the Revenue in para (10) of its order, reproduced below: "10. In view of the afore....