TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Act, 1962. In addition he has confiscated 83,863 L. Mtrs. of Polyester fabrics of foreign origin totally valued at Rs. 82,54,742/- imported by the appellant in excess of the quantity declared by them with an option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs. He has also confiscated declared quantity of 78,605 L. Mtrs. of the fabrics under the provisions of Section 119 of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Ratan Kumar Ramvilas Goel, Director and of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Santraj Singh Megaj Singh Tanwar authorized signatory under the provisions of Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m. Their main contention is that they having paid the duty even before the issuance of the show cause notice, the goods should not have been confiscated and penalties should not have been imposed upon them. For the above purposes they have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam [2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.-Bang.)] and as confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.). They have also referred to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. [2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB)], and in the case of Taurus Novelties Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2004 (173....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Pee Aar Steels P. Ltd v. CCE [2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All) = 2004 (93) ECC 633 (ALL)] (ii) Siva Hygenic Products P. Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (186) E.L.T. 178(T) = 2005 (68) RLT 771 (T)] (iii) Rolcon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (178) E.L.T. 687 (T)] (iv) CCE v. S.P. Tobacco P. Ltd. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 136(T) = 2005 (98) ECC 707 (T)] (v) Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. [2005 (179) E.L.T. 217 (T)] (vi) CCE v. Deepak Spinners [2005 (179) E.L.T. 93 (T)] (vii) Brakes India Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (184) E.L.T. 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared. As such, we are of the view that the ratio of the decision relied upon by the ld. DR which are to the effect that deposit of duty before the issuance of the show cause notice cannot be made the basis for non imposition of penalty, are not applicable to the facts of the instant case where such duty demand has arisen on account of intervention of the department. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. relied upon by the appellant, duty was paid voluntarily by the assessee, whereas in the instant case the fact of mis-declaration is established and it is only thereafter, the appellant paid the duty to get the release of the fabrics. The intention on the part of the appellant to evade can be inferred without any hesitation from the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of which the goods imported are as per description in the documents. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary 'conceal' means to hide completely or carefully — to keep secret — to disguise — to keep from telling. Under Section 119 of the Customs Act the object used for concealing is liable for confiscation. In a case like this where 2 identical lots one without contraband and another with contraband have been imported, the object of importing the other lot is to disguise the contraband to get it passed. In such a situation it cannot be envisaged that only the materials which have been physically used for covering contraband or hiding them are sought to be covered Section 119. In the context of dictionary meaning ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntraj Singh Megaj Singh Tanwar, we do not find any justifiable reason to impose penalty upon him inasmuch as in his very first statement he has deposed his unawareness about excess quantity. Even Shri Ratan Goel has admitted that apart from him no other person for their company was aware of the fact of excess importation. In view of the above we set aside the personal penalty to Rs. 50,000/- upon Shri Santraj Singh Megaj Singh Tanwar. 13.In a nutshell all the appeals are disposed of in the following manner :- (i) Duty of Rs. 42,31,027/- is confirmed against M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., as not contested. (ii) Penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs ....