Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Calcutta Spring Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port), ... on 23 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No. C/75528/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-appeal No. 153/CUS(Apprg)/KOL(P)/2013 dated 29/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata,
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Calcutta Spring Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata.
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri S. P. Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri K. C. Jena, ADC (AR) for the Revenue (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 23.08.2016 ORDER No.FO/A/75885/16 Per Shri H.K.Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 153/CUS (Apprg)/KOL(P)/2015 dated 29/01/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Strand Road, Kolkata as first appellate authority. Under this OIA dt 29/01/2014 first appellate authority reduced redemption fine to Rs. 1, 50,000/- & penalty to Rs. 50,000/- but upheld duty demand of Rs. 3, 55, 688/-, with interest, decided by the Adjudicating authority under OIO dt 4/9/2012.
2. Sh. S. P. Siddhanta (Consultant) appearing for the appellant argued that goods were imported under B/E No. 330673 dt 12/3/2007 under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt 14/11/1995 for reexport after necessary rectification. That appellant executed a bond but the goods after rectification could not be exported within the time prescribed under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt 14/11/95. That show cause notice demanding duty is time barred. That appellant is also eligible to drawback as under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962 if appellant is made to pay import duty. That the entire exercise is revenue neutral. That no redemption fine & penalty is imposable upon the appellant as the goods were ultimately exported out of India after rectification.
3. Sh. K. C. Jena ADC (AR) appearing on behalf of Revenue argued that appellant has not fulfilled the export condition of the exemption notification. That demand can not be time barred as PD bond was executed at the time of import. That redemption fine & penalties have been correctly imposed as appellant has violated the conditions of exemption notification as per Sec 111 (O) of the Customs Act 1962.
4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. The first issue involved in these proceedings is whether demand is time barred or not. It is observed from Para-2 of the show cause notice dt 29/9/2010 that at the time of import of goods a PD bond was executed by the appellant with respect to Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt 14/11/95. It has been admitted by the appellant that imported goods could not be re-exported within the prescribed time. By issuing show cause notice dt 29/9/2010 Revenue has taken steps to finalize the provisional assessment by demanding duty. As such demand is not time barred & has been correctly confirmed alongwith interest.
4.1. On the issue of confiscation and imposition of penalty it is observed that all the relevant details were declared by the appellant at the time of clearance of goods. A delay in exporting the goods will make a case of demand of duty & interest and will not attract confiscation or imposition of penalty upon the appellant. According. Redemption fine imposed & penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside.
5. Appellant also contended that if they are made to pay duty then they would be eligible to Drawback under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962. This aspect can be taken up by the appellant with the appropriate Customs duty under Sec 74 of the C. A 1962 after payment of Customs duty.
6. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed only to the extend indicated in Para-4.1 above.
(Operative part of the order already pronounced in the court.) (H.K.THAKUR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) T.K 4 Appeal No.C/75528/2014