Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sharma Brothers vs Cc, Chennai - Ii on 21 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI C/42426/2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.II No.476/2015 dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai). M/s. Sharma Brothers : Appellant Vs. CC, Chennai - II : Respondent
Appearance Shri Rupesh Sharma, Adv., For the appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR), For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.10.2016 FINAL ORDER No.41960/2016 Appellant is on appeal only with regard to on redemption fine and penalty imposed on them. The facts of the case are that at the time of import of cutting blades, they had not produced the registration certificate from the Legal Metrology Department as required under Rule 27 of the said Rules and had also not indicated the required particulars as mandated by Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act read with Rule 6 (1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
2. Ld. Counsel submits that the goods in question have been confiscated under Section 111D of the Customs Act, 1962, which is irregular since there was no prohibition of the import of the said goods.
3. In response, ld. AR points out that Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, specifically mandates that No person shall import, delivery, offer or possess for sale in pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and appears therein such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. Ld. AR further contends that the usage of the word shall in Section 18 ibid precludes to a prohibition for import of the goods unless the required conditions are not specified. He also draws attention to Section 11 of the Customs Act 1962, which gives powers to the Central Govt. to prohibit importation or exportation of goods, the prohibition therein could be either absolute or subject to conditions.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Not withstanding the argument of the ld. Counsel that the word prohibition has not been incorporated in the concerned Section 18 ibid, nonetheless there is no indication anywhere that such goods are only restricted. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the ld. AR, use of the word shall in Section 18 ibid will have to mean that the goods in question shall have to be imported in the manner as required therein, failure to do so, would consequently give them the colour of prohibited goods. However, keeping in mind taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case and also noting that the appellant had applied for registration immediately after the importation, redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. There will be however, no reduction in penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order is modified only to this extent.
6. In the result, appeal is partially allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) BB/RKP 3