Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Gandhi Parekh Investment Corporation ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 12 September, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalties imposed, we find that the issues being short the appeals could be disposed off at this stage. Both sides agreeing, this was done after waiving the condition of pre-deposit.
2. The order-in-appeal disposes off two appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the appeals before us therefore arise out of the single order. They are therefore disposed off vide this common order.
Appeal E/3671/2000-Mum
3. Some defective goods were received for re-conditioning in terms of Rule 173H on 27/01/1995. After the required processing, these goods were again cleared in four lots during the period 04/09/1995 to 30/09/1995. As per the trade notice issued in pursuance of sub-rule (3) of the said Rule the goods had to be removed within six months of their receipt or within a period as extended by the property authority.
4. The allegation of the department was that no extension was sought. On this ground duty of Rs. 1,21,985/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the plea made was that they had vide their letter dated 30/06/1995 to the Range Superintendent requested for extension of time. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no proof of the letter having been received by the officer and upheld the lower order.
5. We have seen the subject application which bears the indication of its receipt. We have also seen a latter communication dated 06/12/1996 wherein reference has been made to this letter. This letter having been sent prior to the issue of show cause notice is required to be given weightage.
6. We therefore hold that the application for extension as required by the trade notice had been made by the assessee and therefore the confirmation of duty and the imposition of penalty was not warranted. In this respect the appeal succeeds.
Appeal E/3672/2000-Mum
7. The assessee had filed classification list in terms of Rule 173C and were paying duty on such declared prices. In certain cases the prices charged were lower. Show cause notices were issued demanding duty of Rs. 3,52,648/- and also alleging imposition of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand observing that the duty was correctly calculated on the value given in the invoice but imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower order.
8. In the absence of any appeal from Revenue we are not going into the proprietary of the decision of the Assistant Commissioner in not confirming the duty demand. Since he did not confirm the demand there was no reason for him to have imposed the penalty. This order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
9. In the result both the appeals are allowed.