Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Promac Engineering Industries Ltd on 5 November, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 26921 / 2013 Appeal(s) Involved: C/356/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2009 dated 23/02/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad.] Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 500004. Appellant(s) Versus M/s Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. KANAKAPURA ROAD, ALAHALLI OFFICE, ANJANAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560062 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl.Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant None For the Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI BSV MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 05/11/2013 Date of Decision: 05/11/2013 Order Per : B.S.V. MURTHY In the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that appeal filed by Revenue seeking confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) and imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not sustainable in view of the fact that non-possession of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) does not make the goods liable for confiscation.
2. I find that in this case, penalty has been imposed prior to filing a Shipping Bill because exporter was not in possession of IEC and he was allowed to file a manual Shipping Bill. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods should have been confiscated and penalty should have been imposed. In this case confiscation could not have been ordered and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained in view of the fact that at the time when penalty of Rs.2000/- was imposed, goods were not exported or not even attempted to be exported. In this case, filing a manual shipping Bill was allowed by Revenue and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an attempt of export contravening provisions of the law. Once filing a manual shipping bill is allowed, subsequent activities undertaken by exporter become perfectly legal and cannot be considered as illegal. Even though, this is not the basis on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that goods are not liable to confiscation and penalty is not impossible, I find this is the statutory position and cannot be ignored. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Revenue and accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/