Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. N.B. Footwear Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 4 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/1489/2004
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 119/2004 CE dated 23.09.04, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. ARCHANA WADHWA, Judicial Member
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
__________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the : Yes
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental Authorities? __________________________________________________________
M/s. N.B. Footwear Ltd. : Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri M.Karthikeyan, Adv., for the appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR , for the respondents CORAM Honble Ms. ARCHANA WADHWA, Judicial Member Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 04.05.2012 Date of Decision: 04.05.2012 ORDER No._______________ Per: Archana Wadhwa, The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants fairly concedes that the confirmation of demand and duty to the extent of Rs.57,429/- for non export of 1045 pairs of shoes stands rightly confirmed against them. However he submits that they imported around 41820 pairs of soles and manufactured shoes out of the same and exported the same but for 1045 pairs. He submits that they could not export the pairs in time and sought extension from Revenue for doing the same. Two extensions were given but as the appellants could not export the same, they asked for destruction of the said pairs in as much as they were of no use to the appellants. He submits that there is no malafide so as to impose penalty as it is a genuine case of non-export of the part of the goods. The Ld. AR in counter, argues that admittedly the appellants had entered into a bond at the time of import of the soles and they have not exported 1045 pairs and they have invited penal action against them. In as much as Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, provide for imposition of 100% penalty, any prayer for reduction for the same may not be considered, in view of the ratio settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.). In view of the above, duty stands confirmed as not contested. Penalty of identical amount also stands confirmed. We, further note that there is admittedly violation of the provision of the policy in as much as the appellants have not exported 1045 pairs of shoes. As such, they are liable to penalty. In view of the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles, we uphold the imposition of penalty to the extent of 100%. Further penalty of identical amount also stands confirmed. However, the appellants are given an option to pay 25% of the same within a period of 30 days from receipt of the present order, in terms of proviso to Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, in which case the penalty shall stand reduced to 25%. But only for the above option in respect of penalty amount, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (ARCHANA WADHWA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
2