Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S. Vignette Software India Ltd on 7 October, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - Single Member Bench
Court - II
Date of Hearing: 07.10.2011
Date of decision: 07.10.2011
Appeal No. C/132/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 19/2008 (H-II) [D] Cus. dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, 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?
Yes
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise
Hyderabad ..Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Vignette Software India Ltd. Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. R.K. Singla, JCDR, for the revenue None for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 Per: M. Veeraiyan, Heard the learned JCDR. None appears for the respondent.
2. The respondent appears to have imported goods and filed bill of entry for clearing the same. It was noticed that the respondent did not have Importer-Exporter Code number allotted by DGFT and that they did not come under IEC exempted category. Original authority, holding that the respondent has imported without an IE code, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking confiscation of the imported goods which were imported without getting an IE code. Commissioner rejected the appeal of the department. Against the said order the department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Prayer in the appeal is to set aside the order dated 31.10.2008 of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. After hearing the learned JCDR and perusing the grounds of appeal, I find that no details regarding nature/description of the goods, value of the goods imported and whether the goods were prohibited or not is available. Under these circumstances, confiscating the goods whose details are not available may not be appropriate. The prayer is also only for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and even if the prayer is acceded to, the same would lead only to restoring the order of the original authority.
4. At any rate from the records available, it is found to be only a case of a procedural violation and there is no allegation of any misdeclaration of the imported goods or non payment of Customs duty involved.
5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has upheld the order of the original authority by sustaining the penalty imposed on the respondent.
(Pronounced & dictated in open Court)
(M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
iss