Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Asian Rubber & Plastic Industries vs Cc, Amritsar on 20 June, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2005 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 19/Cus/2005 dated 17.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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? 2. Whether it would 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 of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Asian Rubber & Plastic Industries Appellants Vs. CC, Amritsar Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants, Shri B.K.Singh, SDR, Departmental Representative, for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 20 th June, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act and allowed redemption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was also imposed.
3. The appellants filed shipping bill for export of 130 rolls of Flat Transmission Rubber Belt with the claim under DEEC scheme. On examination of goods it was found that transmission belt has been manufactured by using Hessian material instead of synthetic material. It was also found that each roll of 100 Mtrs. in length had been packed in such a way that only 3 Mtrs. length of belting, forming upper layer of the roll, was made of synthetic canvass, out of total roll length.
4. Contention of the appellants is that actually they were to filed free-shipping bill, however, their CHA inadvertently mentioned the claim under DEEC scheme.
5. We find that as the goods were packed in such a way to show that the same were manufactured by using synthetic canvass as upper layer of roll i.e. only 3 Mtrs. out of total length is made of synthetic canvass. There is nothing on record to show that claim was made under DEEC scheme inadvertently as all particulars claiming benefit under the scheme were mentioned as shipping bill. In these circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDNET (RAKESH KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dated 24th June, 2008 RK