Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai on 3 April, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPLICATION NO. C/MA (EH) 271/09, C/S/60/09
IN APPEAL NO. C/31/09 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 147/2008/CAC/CC(1)/SR/GR.VB dated 21.10.08 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance Mrs. K.R. Pardeshi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Kishori Lal, SDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 03.04.09 Date of Decision : 03.04.09 ORDER NO.
Per : Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) These applications towards staying operation of the order of Commissioner of Customs (Import) dated 21.10.08 and for early hearing of the appeal were fixed for hearing today but on the joint request by both sides and after hearing for sometime I felt that the appeal itself can be disposed of .
2. The main issue is that non production of Relaxation or No Objection Certificate from DGFT for clearance of imported Capital Goods i.e. used Off Highway Construction Equipment held in violation of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy under Foreign Trade (development & regulations) Act, 1992. The adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 125, Rs.75,000/- under Section 111(d) and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. During the course of the arguments the ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that it is a live consignment and the required certificate has been obtained and submitted with the Department. As per the letter dated 24.3.09 issued by the Department the letter dated 15.5.08 on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated has been superseded.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. After considering the fact that the appellant has complied the necessary requirement as per Foreign Trade Policy under Foreign Trade (development & regulations) Act, 1992 and is suffering demurrage losses, the redemption fine is waived and the penalty under Section 112(a) is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly stay application and application for early hearing are also disposed off in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2