Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Quest Life Sciences P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 11 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/Misc./367/2009 and C/393/2009
C/Misc./369/2009 and C/394/2009
(Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 591/2009 dated 29.6.2009 and No. 646/2009 dated 28.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Quest Life Sciences P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance
Shri Habibullah Basha, Senior Advocate for the Appellant
Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Honble Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing: 05.08.2015
Date of Decision: 11.08.2015
Final Order No. 41016-41017 / 2015
Per R. Periasami
Appellant filed appeals against Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) orders both the appeals are taken up together for disposal as the issue involved is common and identical in nature.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have set up a unit at MEPZ (now SEZ) and registered with MEPZ, Development Commissioner for providing export of service in respect of generating Clinical Bio Analytical Statistics and Data Management. It appeared that the appellant did not carry out sustained exports instead transferred about Rs.1.62 crores worth of service to DTA without proper intimation to customs authorities and without payment of required duty. The adjudicating authority in his denovo adjudication order confirmed the demand of Rs.24,48,632/- under section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed equal amount of penalty under section 114A of the said Act. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the adjudication order. Hence the appellants have preferred these appeals.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. Shri Habibullah Basha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted written synopsis and submitted that the entire demand of customs duty under section 28(2) is purely based on the order issued by the Development Commissioner which relates to the removal of goods to the DTA. The present order does not deal with the question of demand and also the question of classification whether the goods are printed books or not. He further submits that the show-cause notice was issued by Development Commissioner, MEPZ for violation of the provisions as per para 8(b) and 8(d) of FTP, 2004 09. He further submits that their nature of service is related to generating Clinical Bio Analytical Statistics and Data Management and this work is of pharmaceutical research and reports cleared from the unit in MEPZ purely through documents and these documents are in the nature of movable property falling within the ambit of definition of goods under Customs Act. The Development Commissioner imposed penalty for violation of FTP relates to transferring the service to the DTA without obtaining proper permission and the same is nothing to do with the demand. He further submits that the goods removed from MEPZ were only printed documents falling under Chapter 4901 of Customs Tariff Act. The classification of books has not been discussed by the adjudicating authority or the lower appellate authority. He further submits the goods or stock cleared to DTA sales are falling under Chapter 4901 and not under Chapter 4911 of Customs Tariff Act. He further submits that the original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and remanded to the adjudicating authority. Even in the denovo adjudication order the adjudicating authority has not discussed the issue of classification but merely confirmed the demand by relying the Development Commissioners order. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order also held that in view of the Apex Courts judgment the goods cleared are books. He further submits that what is cleared is books even though they are not bound. He relied on the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. 2005 (186) ELT 532 (SC). He relied on paragraphs 26, 46, 47, 50, 54 to 58. He further submits that what they have cleared is books classifiable under 4901. He also drew the attention to HSN Explanatory Note of Chapter 49 which includes printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter whether or not in single sheets are classifiable under 4901 1010 whereas Revenue classified under 49119910. The Honble Supreme Court in the above decision had considered both HSN and customs classification and considered its own order in the case of Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2000 (119) ELT 211 (Tri. LB) and Scientific Engineering House Ltd. Vs. CIT 1986 (1) SCC 11 and distinguished the above judgments and held that these goods should be classified under 4901 and held these cannot be classified under residual entry of 4911 and specific entry will prevail over residual entry. He further submits that the demand is also hit by limitation and that no penalty is imposable as what they have cleared to DTA are books classifiable under 4901 and not chargeable to any duty. He also submits that currently there is no dispute as they were clearing the same goods under Chapter 4901 to DTA at nil rate of duty by following the procedure and filing the Shipping Bill and there is no demand of customs duty for the subsequent periods.
5. On the other hand, learned AR for Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and the impugned order and submits that the unit is located in MEPZ, Chennai and they are fully governed by the guidelines of the conditions imposed by the Development Commissioner. She submits that they have registered with the Development Commissioner, MEPZ for clinical data management services. She drew our attention to para 18 of Order-in-Original at page 30. She further submits that they gave two different figures one to Development Commissioner and another to the Customs which has been clearly brought out in page 46 of Order-in-Appeal. Regarding the classification of the goods, she submits that the issue started with the Tribunals Larger Bench decision in the case of Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. vs. Commissioner (supra) which has been reversed by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in Commissioner Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. 2001 (133) ELT 9 (SC). She submits that documents cleared by the appellants are not books and they are rightly classifiable under 4911. She also relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of LML Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2010 (258) ELT 321 (SC).
6. The learned Senior Advocate in his rejoinder countered the arguments of the Revenue and submitted that all the citations relied by Revenue have already been duly considered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electronics and the decision has attained finality.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided in the present appeals relate to demand of customs duty of Rs.24,48,632/- on the goods cleared from MEPZ/SEZ to DTA sales classifiable under chapter 4901 or chapter 4911 of Customs Tariff Act and whether chargeable to appropriate customs duty or otherwise. We find from the proceedings that the adjudicating authority in his first order dated 23.6.2006 confirmed the duty which was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded to the adjudicating authority. Again the denovo adjudication order dated 16.11.2006 passed confirming the duty and the same was also set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of customs Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics. The appellant has challenged the third denovo Order-in-Original dated 20.9.2007 before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal and upheld the adjudication order which is under challenge before the Tribunal by the appellant.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appellant-unit is registered with MEPZ/SEZ. The appellant has set up the unit in MEPZ/SEZ for rendering service in relation to clinical data research meant for multinational corporate. We find that the unit was not carrying fulfilling of export obligation the Development Commissioner issued a notice for violations of provisions of FTP 2004 2009 as the appellants have cleared the goods/services to DTA without proper intimation to the Development Commissioner and also to the customs authorities. The Development Commissioner vide his order dated 21.2.2006 imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs for FTP violations and for transferring the service to DTA without obtaining proper permission from the competent authorities. The customs authorities initiated proceedings and issued show-cause notice dated 29.5.2006 demanding customs duty on the DTA sale and also proposing penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order classified the goods cleared to DTA under Chapter Heading 49119990 of Customs Tariff Act corresponding to Chapter Heading 49119990 of CETA and confirmed the demand of customs duty. We find from the impugned order that the basic activity of the appellant is relating to carrying out of research services and supplying the results in the form chromatograms and printouts and documents to various DTA units. Para 13 of the Order-in-Original dated 20.9.2007 is reproduced as under:-
Another point raised by the unit is that the Customs can verify the veracity of their statement that the goods are books by causing necessary verification either at the unit or at the consignees end. Alternatively, the unit has submitted that affidavits could be given from consignees end to prove that the cleared goods were books. This order is a denovo order arising out of the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. 120/2007 dated 26.2.2007 wherein certain direction have been given to adjudicate afresh after re-examining the issue in the light of Apex Courts order in 2005 (186) ELT 532 (SC). As discussed in para 12 of this order the application of the Apex Courts order is applicable only if it is shown that the goods are books. No concrete, clinching documentary evidence has been given by the unit that the goods are books and hence the issue of causing verification by the Customs at this belated stage would be going beyond the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and beyond the scope of denovo proceedings. Further, the assumed factor of the goods being books is discussed in para 12 of this order, which sets as rest the doubt raised, by the unit.
9. We find that the impugned order has relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. (supra). The impugned order also referred to the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. (supra) and held that the above cases are not applicable. Revenue has demanded customs duty by classifying the products under 49119990 whereas the appellants classified under 4901. In this regard, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. (supra) has clearly dealt the issue of classification that design, drawing and plans are classifiable under 4901 and not under the residuary entry 4911. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
26. It is also appropriate at this stage to refer to Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN). The relevant part reads thus;
49.01 - PRINTED BOOKS, BROCHURES, LEAFLETS AND SIMILAR PRINTED MATTER, WHETHER OR NOT IN SINGLE SHEETS.
4901.10
-
In single sheets, whether or not folded
-
Other 4901.91
-
Dictionaries and encyclopedias, and serial instalments thereof 4901.99
-
Other This heading covers virtually all publications and printed reading matter, illustrated or not with the exception of publicity matter and products more specifically covered by other headings of the Chapter (particularly) Heading 49.02, 49.03 or 49.95. It includes :
(A) Books and booklets consisting essentially of textual matter of any kind and printed in any language or characters, including Braille or shorthand. They include literary works of all kinds, text books and technical publications books of reference such as dictionaries, encyclopaedias and directories; catalogues for museums and public libraries (but not trade catalogues); liturgical books such as prayer books and hymn books (other than music hymn books of Heading 49.04); childrens books (other than childrens picture, drawing or colouring books of Heading 49.03). Such books may be bound (in paper or with soft or stiff covers) in one or more volumes, or may be in the form of printed sheets comprising the whole or a part of the complete work and designed for binding.
Dust covers, clasps, book-marks and other minor accessories supplied with the books are regarded as forming part of the book.
(B) Brochures, pamphlets and leaflets, whether consisting of several sheets of reading matter fastened together (e.g., stapled), or of unfastened sheets, or even of single sheets. These include publications such as : shorter scientific theses and monographs, instruction notices, etc., issued by government departments or other bodies, tracts, hymn sheets. Etc. (C) Textual matter in the form of sheets for binding in loose leaf binders.
The heading also covers :
(1) Newspapers, journals and periodicals bound otherwise than in paper, and sets of newspapers, journals or periodicals comprising more than one number under a single cover, whether or not containing advertising material.
(2) Bound picture books (other than childrens picture books of Heading 49.03).
(3) A collection of printed reproductions of works of art, drawings, etc. with a relative text (for example, a biography of the artist), put up with numbered pages and forming a whole suitable for binding.
(4) A pictorial supplement accompanying and subsidiary to a bound volume containing the relative text.
27. A question? similar to one with which we are concerned came up for consideration before the authorities in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. The Central Excise Authorities held that Drawings, Designs and Plans imported by the Company could not be said to be Books within the meaning of Chapter Heading 49.01 but would be covered under sub-heading 4911.99 and hence were liable to custom duty. The demand made by the authority, therefore, came to be confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner, the Company approached CEGAT. A two member Bench felt that there were conflicting decisions on the point which could appropriately be resolved by a Larger Bench and accordingly by an order dated March 14, 2000, the matter was ordered to be placed before the President for constituting a Larger Bench. As already observed earlier, the Larger Bench in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 211 decided the question in favour of assessee and against the Department. Resultantly, the appeals were allowed by holding that printed materials imported by the Company could be said to be Books falling within Tariff Heading 49.01 and were entitled to exemption as Printed books.
28. It was? conceded by the Department before us is that no doubt in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., the Larger Bench of CEGAT decided the question of law in favour of assessee and against the Department, but the Department had taken the mater further and this Court reversed the decision of the Larger Bench in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) = (2001) 9 SCC 74. It was, therefore, submitted that the decision of CEGAT impugned in these appeals deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeals of the Department. It was submitted that two appeals have been filed by the Department for enhancement of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs since the penalty was inadequate and required to be enhanced. In view of the fact, however, that CEGAT allowed the appeals of the assessee and quashed the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed. In the light of the decision of this Court in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. the decision of CEGAT deserves to be reversed. In that case, both the appeals filed by the Department for enhancement of penalty should be allowed. In the alternative, they may be remitted to CEGAT for fresh consideration on merits for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
30. So far as CEGAT is concerned, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the assessee is right in submitting that the point is finally concluded in favour of assessee and against the Department in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. The Larger Bench observed that in several cases, Drawings, Designs and Plans were held to be covered under Chapter 49 and would fall under Heading 49.01 (Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter whether or not in single sheets); 49.06 (Plans and drawing etc. for architecture, engineering, industrial, commercial, topographical or similar purposes, being originals drawn by hand; had-written texts; photographic reproductions on sensitized paper and carbon copies of the foregoing); and 49.11 (other printed matter, including printed pictures and photographs) and not under 4911.99 (other). The Larger Bench also noted that in some cases, a contrary view was taken. But relying on the majority of the decisions, it was held that the relevant heading was 49.01 of Schedule I of the Act.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
34. In popular? sense, book means a collection of a number of leaves or sheets of paper or of other substance, blank, written or printed, of any size, shape and value, held together along one of the edges so as to form a material whole and protected on the front and back with a cover of more or less durable material. The Court also referred to dictionary meaning. It was observed that one must refer not only to the physical, but also functional characteristic of book. It must be functionally useful for the purpose of assessees business or profession. To put it differently, it must be a tool of his trade an article which must be part of the apparatus with which his business or profession was carried on. It must have utility value enabling its owner to pursue his business or profession with greater advantage. It must, thus, satisfy a dual test. It must bear both physical and functional characteristics of a book. It must be a collection of a number of sheets of paper or of other substance, having suitable size, shape and value, bound together at one edge so as to form a material whole and protected on the front and back with covers of some kind and functionally useful to the assessee for carrying on his business or profession.
35. The Court also referred to English decisions on the point. A reference may be made in this connection to a decision of Court of Chancery in Pretyman v. Pretyman, (1931) 1 Ch 521. The testator in that case had by his will inter alia bequeathed all the pictures, prints, statues, sculptures, articles of vertu books, furniture and plate to his trustees. The estate of the testator included 155 original manuscripts of the series of letters and papers known as Paston letters. Those letters and papers were not in the form of loose sheets included in portfolios or kept in a safe. They were mounted, or inlaid in sheets of paper and bound up in three volumes. The question before the Court was whether those three volumes could be said to be articles of vertu or book within the meaning of the relevant statute.
Replying the question in affirmative, Maugham, J. stated;
To my mind it is plain that a book is not necessarily a printed book But in addition, according to the ordinary meaning of the English word book. There are many books which are not necessarily the sort of books which one finds in a library at all, and which yet are books. I might mention as an example the book which I have before me, a judges notebook. I do not know how that could be described otherwise than as a book. Referring to earlier decisions, the Court concluded;
In the present case I have come to the conclusion that these three volumes are books. The factors leading me to that conclusion are these : The volumes are in book form; to the outward eye they look like books, and in the ordinary course they can be, and are, handled like books. Next, I observe that they can be used like books, in the sense that, as one turns over the sheets, one can, if able to decipher the handwriting, read the various letters as a collection of letters bound up in the books. I observe further that they are not detachable letters in the ordinary sense, but have been so inserted in the sheets that they are in substance permanent parts of the volumes, unless, indeed, they should be cut out or removed by some forcible effect. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
42. It is, no? doubt, true that in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., a two Judge Bench of this Court reversed the decision of CEGAT and held that Drawings, Designs and Plans imported by the assessee from Zimmer under an agreement for transfer of technology for setting up a plant to manufacture specified goods could not be said to be book and hence was not covered by Chapter Heading 49.01 nor exempted under notification of 1975. It is also true that the Court considered both the decisions, viz., Scientific Engineering House Ltd. decided by this Court and Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. decided by the High Court of Gujarat.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
50. In our? opinion, the Counsel is right in submitting that when the expression book is not defined in the Act, natural and ordinary meaning of the said expression must be kept in view. According to him, nowhere it is provided that all the nine characteristics or ingredients as highlighted by the learned Attorney General in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and referred to by this Court in paragraph 10 must be considered essential or sine qua non. He, therefore, submitted that a wrong test was applied by this Court in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and Scientific Engineering House Ltd. was erroneously distinguished. The proper way on the part of the Court was to consider the test laid down in Scientific Engineering House Ltd. and to come to a conclusion whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Drawings, Designs and Plans in the case on hand could be said to be book. By not doing so, a clear error of law had been committed and the decision deserves to be overruled.
51. It was also submitted that so far as factual aspect is concerned, CEGAT was right in holding that Drawings, Designs and Plans imported by the assessee were covered by Tariff Heading 49.01 and were also entitled to exemption under Notifications No. 107/93-Cus. and 38/94-Cus. Alternatively, it was submitted that if this Court is of the view that CEGAT has not entered into the said question in view of the Larger Bench decision, the matter may be remitted to CEGAT directing it to consider the case afresh by applying correct test and to take an appropriate decision.
52. The learned?Counsel for the Revenue submitted that Elecon Engineers Ltd. and Scientific Engineering Housing Ltd. were rendered in different context. The basic issue was whether books were covered by the entry plant under the Income Tax Act. Those decisions, therefore, have no relevance to the issue in question since the entries are different. It was also submitted that since the article in question was to be used by the assessee and was prepared according to his requirement, it had no utility to others. Hence, it cannot be said to be a book in general sense. It was argued that this Court has considered the factual position in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and held that the article was not a book. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to hold otherwise in the present case.
53. In our?opinion, all these questions have to be considered and decided by the CEGAT in the fact-situation of the case in hand. As already noted by us, some of the tests applied in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. were not relevant and appropriate. The CEGAT will now consider the ratio in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment and decide the issue raised in the instant case.
54. The matter could be looked at from another angle also. As noted earlier, HSN has dealt with the point and as per Explanatory Note, it would fall under Chapter Heading 49.01. If it is so, it would not be covered by sub-heading 4911.99.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
57. There is still one more aspect which is relevant. It cannot be disputed and is not disputed before us and is also concluded by a decision of a three Judge Bench in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. that the basic heading is 49.01. It deals with Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, whether or not in single sheets. 49.11 covers Other printed matter, including printed pictures and photographs. Thus, specific or basic heading is 49.01 and residual entry is 49.11. Priority, therefore, has to be given to the main entry and not the residual entry. According to the Company, the case is covered by the main entry under 49.01, and in that view of the matter, one cannot consider the residual entry 49.11.
58. In Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 125, this Court held that residuary item can be referred to and such item can be applied only when goods are shown to be not falling under any other specific item. If they are covered by a specific item, residuary item has no application.
10. The Honble Supreme Court in the above order has taken into consideration the earlier decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. (supra), Scientific Engineering House Ltd.. Vs. Commissioner (supra) and Commissioner Vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 23 (SC) and held that the basic Chapter Heading 4901 covers printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter whether or not in single sheets whereas 4911 covers other printed matter. The Apex Court also ruled that specific or basic chapter heading 4901 should be given priority which is the main entry not the residual entry under 4911. Therefore, we find from the impugned order as well as from the earlier orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the case to the adjudicating authority has specifically directed the lower authority to consider the Honble Supreme Courts decision in Commissioner Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. (supra) as the adjudicating authority initially classified the goods under 4911 based on the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. (supra), for the very reason the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the above Honble Supreme Courts decision. Both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority while passing the denovo order and the impugned order respectively, though they have referred the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. (supra), but classified the goods under 4911 by merely relying para 12 of earlier Order-in-Original dated 23.6.2006 where the adjudicating authority classified the goods under 4911.
11. In view of the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in the case of Commissioner Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. (supra), where the Apex Court has clearly dealt and discussed the classification and also discussed HSN Explanatory Notes in detail and held that the goods are classifiable under 4901. In the present case the facts on record that the appellants cleared printed materials and chromatogram which are research papers are specifically covered under 49011010 of the CTA.
12. By respectfully following the Apex Courts decision referred above, the goods cleared classifiable under 4901, the demand of duty on the goods cleared to DTA is not sustainable and the same is set aside along with the penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act.
13. However, on perusal of the impugned order and the adjudication order, we find that the appellant having been registered as MEPZ/SEZ unit are covered under rules and regulations of the MEPZ / Customs Rules and Regulations. Even if the goods are exempted the appellants should have followed the procedure for clearing the goods to DTA which apparently they have not done. The appellants have not filed any shipping bill and no intimation was given to the Department and no procedure prescribed for SEZ and customs notifications are followed. They have not only violated FTP regulations for which the Development Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs but they have also violated the procedure and rules prescribed under the Customs Act. Further, they admitted the said violations before the Tribunal and which is recorded in the findings of adjudication authority. The very fact that the appellant, for the subsequent periods, have filed shipping bills and cleared the goods at nil rate of duty confirms the fact that during the relevant period the appellant failed to follow the procedure stipulated under Customs Act and Regulations and ignored all the customs formalities. Therefore, having set aside penalty imposed under section 114A, we find there is enough evidence for imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1978 (2) ELT J355 (SC) and in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. The Elphinestone Spinning and Weaving Mills P. Ltd. 1978 (2) ELT J399 (SC) held that citing wrong rule will not vitiate the proceedings as the appellant themselves admitted the violations and the Development Commissioner already imposed penalty under FTP. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are liable for penalty for contravening the procedures prescribed for clearance to DTA. Accordingly, we impose penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each on the appellants in respect of their appeals.
14. Both the appeals are allowed except for imposition of penalty of total Rs.2,00,000/- for both appeals. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI)
Judicial Member Tehnical Member
Rex
9