TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SAP) the Appellant is holding a large area of factory premises and manufacturing drugs and pharmaceuticals. The appellant has obtained within the factory premises, sanction for 3(three) EOU units namely, Simva-Atorva Plant (SAP), Human Insulin Plant (RHI), Immuno-Suppresant Fermentation Plant (IFP) and separate area is marked for esch of the EOU within the factory premises under Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). Thus, Appellant being a public limited company having one legal entity but has different units both under EOU and non-EOU situated within the same premises. 3. Alleging violation of the provisions of law, proceedings were initiated and DRI has conducted verification of the physical stock and found difference between the stock inventory recorded and goods physically available. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated and a show cause notices (SCN) was issued. Thereafter the Adjudication authority as per the impugned orders confirmed the demand of duty against each EOU, separately. Adjudication authority also imposed personal penalty on the Vice President, Operations. Aggrieved by said orders, appeals are filed before this Tribunal. The details of the appeal are as detailed below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... solvent and acids). Once the purchase order is released and a CT-3 certificate issued, a packing slip is generated which indicates the GRN number and the GRN date generated for the goods. The said GRN number is indicated on slips tagged to the packing material be it a drum or sack in which the raw-material is stored. Inflammable solvents are separately stored for safety measure as prescribed under the Explosives Act, 1884. Certain acids are stored separately in the designated acid area within the factory premises and certain raw materials which are required to be stored in a cold storage are stored in a common freezer located in the DTA since beginning of the activities in the premises and it was within the knowledge of the concerned authority. 5. The Learned Counsel also draws our attention to the plan of the premises and the position of each DTA units and submits that the alleged transfer is nothing but shifting of the goods for undertaking repair or maintenance of some of the area and the only lapse on the part of the Appellant is that the Appellant failed to inform the proper officer regarding such sanction. The Learned Counsel further submits that after commencement of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have certain right to deal with the goods and once the goods are brought under bond, and considering the responsibility of the Appellant to export the goods, such minor omission on the part of the Appellant cannot be considered as violation of the statutory provision to confirm demand of duty and to impose penalty. The Learned Counsel further submits that they have not contravened any of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy (Chapter 6 thereof) in as much as they have used duty-free (bonded) goods only for manufacture of specified final goods and cleared the final products in accordance with Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) provisions and they have achieved positive NFE criteria and fulfilled its export obligations as per FTP provisions. There is no action whatsoever initiated by the FTP authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is not justified in finding that the Appellant had contravened FTP provisions and violated conditions of concerned notifications in question. In support of the above pleadings, the Appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) BISCO Limited Vs. CC & CE, 2024 (389) ELT 292 (SC). (b) MNS Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, 2005 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d imposition of redemption fine is unsustainable. The Learned Counsel relied on the following decisions: - (a) CCE Vs. HMM Ltd., 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC) (b) Kaur and Singh Vs. CCE, 1997 (94) ELT 289 (SC) (c) Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. UOI, 1996 (88) ELT 24 (SC) (d) Veeforess Exporters Vs. CC, 2014 (307) ELT 108 (Mad.). (e) CCE Vs. Chandrawati Polymers Pvt Ltd, 2007 (218) ELT 540 (Tri-Del.). (f) Micro Polyester Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, 2007 (211) ELT 297 (Tri-Ahmd.) (g) Sanjida Fabrics Vs. CC, 2007 (210) ELT 689 (Tri- Ahmd.). (h) Shiva Kripa Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, 2009 (235) ELT 623 (T-LB) affirmed by Honourable Bombay High Court as reported in 2015 (318) ELT A259 (Bom.). (i) CCE Vs. Premier Polyspin Pvt Ltd, 2010 (257) ELT 447 (Tri-Ahmd.). (j) CC Vs. Finesse Creation Inc, 2009 (248) ELT 122 (Bom.) maintained by Apex Court as reported in 2010 (255) ELT A120 (SC). (k) CC v. Air India Ltd, 2023 (386) ELT 236 (Bom.) 12. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that there was an omission on the part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods, though it is an omission as per the Notification, the issue was considered by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Honeywell Technology Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (2008 (231) E.L.T 592 (Tri. - Bang.)) wherein it is held that: - "16. In the present case, the situations given in Section 72 have not arisen. There is no removal of warehoused goods outside the bonded premises. The movement is only from one bonded premise to another. The lapse is that no proper permission was taken from the Customs. However, with the action taken by the STPI Director, the entire irregularity has been regularized. A fine also had been imposed. In these circumstances, there is no justification for any demand of duty. As regards the stand taken by the department with regard to the goods imported for EHTP should have been used only for hardware purposes, it should be borne in mind that the relevant Customs Notification covers both software and hardware. The appellants faced certain difficulties in continuing with the hardware manufacture. Therefore, they changed their activities. In fact, they had carried out business process solution activity and brought sizable foreign exchange.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igid system of obtaining permission is to be followed, that will create too much hassles resulting in inefficiency and non-performance. In any case, when procedural violation takes place, it would not be correct to demand duty on the goods imported duty free under the scheme and also the indigenous goods procured. After going through the entire records, we are convinced that all the goods are available only in the bonded premises of the appellant. There is no allegation that the goods have been diverted to some other premises or have been misused. Even in respect of the duty on the computers sold to M/s. Vimal Computers, the appellant has clearly shown that the actual number cleared was only 55 and they had paid duty on 153 PCs. They were able to show the mistake committed by the department in respect of Gate Pass No. 3570/29-7-2003 wherein the number 112 denotes only the number of accessories as per list and not the number of computers as erroneously assumed by the departmental authorities. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. We do not hold that the capital goods are liable for confiscation. In any case, the circumstances en....