Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Prakash International, Lovely Offset ... vs Cc, Trichy And Cc, Chennai on 17 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(83)ECC767
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. In all these appeals, the issue being common, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.
2. Shri S. Ranganathan, Advocate appears in a batch of Appeals C/426/2000, C/654/2000, C/436/2000, C/469/2000, C/654/2000, C/472/2000 & C/503/2000. He points out to the fact of each of the case and contends that in all these matters appellants had imported second-hand printing machinery. The allegations made against these appellants are that appellants had violated the provision of para 5.4 of the Handbook Procedure 1997-2000, inasmuch as that they had sold second-hand machineries to other persons and hence goods had become eligible for confiscation and for imposition of penalty. He points out that in C/426/2000 i.e in the case of M/s. Gold Mother Agencies, appellants had imported four machines and had sold the same in the local market for a sum of Rs. 5.50 lakhs without seeking permission from the proper authority or without following the prescribed procedure i.e. following actual user condition as laid down in EXIM policy and thus department alleged that goods were liable for confiscation and for imposition of penalty.
3. Likewise, in the case of M/s. Deccon Graphix, the same Commissioner has noted in his order that 18 second-hand printing machine were sold by the party in violation of EXIM policy as against import of 28 machineries. Ld. Counsel points out that 18 machineries which were sold were directed to be confiscated. However, they were directed to be released on fine of Rs.2.40 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 50,000. The machineries which were used by the appellant were also confiscated, however, giving option for redemption on a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He contends that confiscation of 10 machineries which were in appellant's use were not liable for confiscation and penalty. He points out that in C/469/2000, the case of Mehta Fine Arts, the same Commissioner has directed for confiscation of 16 nos. of second-hand printing machineries which were sold by the party in the market for Rs. 48,81,000. However option for redemption was given on payment of fine of Rs. 12,75,000. Penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs was also imposed. In C/654/2000 in the case of Mehta Fine Arts, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order passed by the Jt. Commissioner of Customs ordering for confiscation of 2 machines which had been sold in the market. The redemption fine imposed by the Jt. Commissioner has been modified to Rs. 60,000 and penalty of Rs. 25,000.
4. In Appeal C/472/2000 in the case of M/s Lovely Offset Printers, the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy has ordered for confiscation of 8 machines valued at Rs. 12,26,830, however, granting redemption on fine of Rs. 7.75 lakhs. However, there is no penalty imposed.
5. In Appeal C/503/2000 in the case of Prakash International, the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy has, on the same reasoning, ordered for confiscation of 3 nos. of second-hand printing machinery valued at Rs. 8,17,884 which are in the appellants' use. However, they have been granted option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. He has also ordered for confiscation of 20 second-hand printing machines totally valued at Rs. 7,15,000 which have already been sold in the market by the party. However, he has also given option to redeem on payment of fine Rs. 14 lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs has been imposed.
6. Ld. Counsel in all these appeals contends that those machineries which were in the use of appellants' own premises are not eligible for confiscation. He points out that sale made to actual user is required to be accepted in terms of procedure laid in para 5.4 of the EXIM policy. He submits that in all these cases the sale had been made to actual users. Therefore, the only offence is with regard to appellants not having taken permission from concerned authority before effecting the sale to actual user. He points out that batch of appeals on the same issue was decided by this Bench by final Order No. 2039 to 2057/2001 dated 21.12.01 in the case of V. Solomon Jeyapandian and Ors. v. CC Trichy and the tribunal after a detailed consideration of all the case-laws and the provisions of law have remanded the cases to respective original authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of observations made and also to adopt uniform redemption fine and penalty in all the cases where machinery has been sold. The Tribunal has also given a findings that machineries which are in actual user's use cannot be confiscated. He pleaded that the same order be passed in the present case also.
7. Heard Ld. DR Shri C. Mani and Shri A. Jayachandran appears and submits that Tribunal has already decided this issue and the matter can be remanded back to the original authority to follow the ratio of the cited Judgment.
8. On a careful consideration of the submissions, and on a perusal of the entire orders and the cited judgments, we notice that Tribunal has already taken up a batch matter pertaining to sale of second-hand printing machinery in the market. The Tribunal after due consideration and after examining the EXIM policy clearly held that in the light of earlier order that sale to actual user is permissible. However, the matter was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the aspect pertaining to imposition of RF and penalty in the light of observation made in the Judgment. Since the matters have already been remanded to the same authority, it is but proper we follow the ratio of the cited Judgment rendered in the case of V. Solomon Jeyapandian and Ors. (supra) and set aside the impugned orders noted above and remand the case to the original authority for de novo consideration in the light of cited Judgment. Thus the appeals are allowed by way of remand.