TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were granted license under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 as private bonded warehouse and permission to manufacture in bond under Section 65 of the said Act. They have executed B-17 bond of Rs. 20 Crores with the department for the same. 2. During audit of their records, CERA, Ahmedabad observed that the unit has imported/ procured DG sets from SEZ unit as well as from M/s. Powerica Limited, a 100% EOU based at Bangalore. Their objection was that the appellant has been granted Letter of Permission (LoP) for manufacturing of DG sets whereas they have imported/ procured DG sets and sold them without undergoing any authorized manufacturing activity. Although, the Letter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.2 This show cause notice was decided by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 20.01.2017 wherein he confirmed the demand of Customs duty alongwith applicable interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 114A of the said Act. He, however dropped the demand of Central Excise duty and proposal of confiscation of both imported as well as domestically procured DG sets. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,18,618/- on Shri Nagendra Singh, Authorised Signatory of the appellant, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 Aggrieved with the above order, the appellant filed appeal before the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Authorities without the Development Commissioner first taking any action. They relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Premier Granites Limited vs. CC - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 220 (ii) Vishal Footwear vs. CC - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 60 (iii) ABN Granites vs. CC - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 483 (e) No duty can be demanded against the EOU as the goods are deposited in warehouse and the duty can be demanded only at the time of de-bonding. Following case laws are relied upon:- (i) CC vs. Infosys Technologies Limited 2003 (159) E.L.T. 863 (Tri. Bang.) (ii) Ceeta Industries Limited. vs. CC [2004 (165) E.L.T. 333] (iii) Asian Latex Limited. vs. CC [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1229] (iv) Laskmi Cemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 820 (T) - Maintained by Supreme Court at 2003 (153) ELT A301 (SC) (iv) Pranav Vikas (I) Limited vs. CCE-2002 (148) ELT 963 (T) (v) Asoka Spintex vs. CCE- 2004 (171) ELT 59 (T) (vi) IOC vs. CCE- 2003 (55) RLT 732 (T) (vii) Air Carrying Corporation vs. CCE - 2008 (229) ELT 80 (T) -Approved by Hon'ble Bombay High Court at 2009 (248) ELT 175 (h) The goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 as this clause is applicable only when a condition of an exemption notification is violated by the importer. In this case, there is no such violation. (i) Penalty is not imposable under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 as the ingredients required to impose penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sembled and then supplied to the customers. As the condition in both the procurements was same, the department should have given the same treatment but the learned adjudicating authority accepted their contention in respect of domestically procured DG sets from M/s. Powerica and confirmed duty on re-imported DG sets.. Serial No. 7 of the Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. Dated 31.03.2003 permits import of raw materials without imposition of time-limit. The rejected DG sets were nothing but raw material since these on receipt, were re-engineered as per the specification of the customers. 5. Opposing the arguments, learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and emphasized that the appellant had wrongly availed exemption of dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to M/s. SEZ Biotech Services Pvt. Limited on 27.03.2008 who rejected 3 DG sets on 24.11.2009 on the ground that these are not as per specification. Thereafter, the appellant applied to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent for issue of procurement certificate. After obtaining the said certificate on 04.12.2009, they filed Bill of Entry on 09.12.2009 with the Authorised Officer of Serum Biotech Pharma Park SEZ, Pune claiming benefit of exemption notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003. Here, a question arises that when the appellant had disclosed full facts by way of enclosing the supplier's invoice alongwith Bill of Entry clearly indicating that rejected DG sets are being sent back to the supplier M/s. Sterling Generators Pvt. Limi....