TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Central Tax, Indore whereby he confirmed the demands of Customs duty and Central excise duty from M/s. Laser Scanning Systems Pvt. Ltd Laser, Indore, the main noticee, ordered confiscation of the imported goods under section 111(o) and allowed their redemption on payment of fine and imposed penalties. The operative part of the order is as follows: "(i) Amount of Customs duty Rs. 76,93,245/- is confirmed and order to be recovered from Noticee No. 1 under section 72 & 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2033 and condition no. 10 of the Bond executed by them. (ii) Amount of Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,53,375/- is confirmed and order to be recovered under section 11A of the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verable from Laser, it is ordered to be recovered from the appellant. The prayer in the appeal is to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. However, we find that the only part of the order against the appellant is the imposition of penalty and recovery of duty to the extent it cannot be recovered from the main noticee. The issues framed in paragraph 9 of the appeal are as follows: a) Whether the present appellant, being director of the company is liable to penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act? b) Whether the recovery of dues of the company can be proposed against the present appellant being whole time director of the company as he executed the bond on behalf of the company? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g) The duty cannot be recovered from the appellant since he was only the director of the firm during the relevant period. 4. Learned authorised representative confirms the facts of the case but submits as follows: a) The appellant had signed the B-17 bonds of Laser as a surety and therefore, the order of the Commissioner to recover the duty from the appellant if it cannot be recovered fully or partly from Laser is fair and proper. Laser and the appellant bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the duty payable but for the exemption. b) The Commissioner was fair and just in ordering recovery from Laser and proposing recovery from the appellant only to the extent it cannot be so recovered. c) Laser had exec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... some conditions including the main condition that the importer manufactures and exports goods and thereby achieves the Net Foreign Exchange (NFE) requirement and that Laser failed to achieve it and therefore, requested to de-bond the goods. It is undisputed that in such a case, duties have to be paid as appropriate. Therefore, the duties were recoverable from Laser. 7. It is undisputed that at the time of import of goods, the exemption was allowed subject to execution of bonds on which the appellant signed as the surety. Needless to say, if the main person fails to pay the amounts (duties in this case) due, they can be recovered from surety. The impugned order confirmed the demands only against the importer and the duties were ordered t....