Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Jet Time India Pvt. Ltd. And S.L. Patel vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 16 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(75)ECC85
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 29.11 lakhs and penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q by Jet Time India Pvt. Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q and Rule 225 on S.I. Patel, its Managing Director Jet time India Pvt. Ltd. manufactures quartz clocks, movements and parts in its factory at Tivim, Goa. The Commissioner finds that it removed 219 consignments of clocks and their parts without payment of duty. The basis for this finding briefly is the number of airway bills issued by M/s. Trade Wings Limited, the cargo agent for Indian Airlines, the carrier and statements of Jude Soares, an employee of Trade Wings, Marcia D'Souza and other persons. The department's case is that Soares used to pick up twice or thrice in a month these consignments without payment of duty.
2. The airway bills show the cargo to be quartz clocks or their parts. The consignor in many of the airway bills on the basis of which these are prepared stated to be the manufacture or of buyer as the manufacturer. Soares has stated in his statement that payments were generally made by cash. However, in these cases where these instructions cited consignee as a buyer that Jet Time India Pvt. Ltd. none of these consignees were questioned as to whether their payments have been made are not. The statements of D'Souza are contradictory. At one point, she says that three consignments in a month were cleared without payment of duty. At another point, she says that she was "not aware of a single case removed without gate pass". There is similar contradiction to be in the statements of Soares relating to picking up these goods.
3. However, at this stage it by no means possible to say that there is strong prima facie case for waiver of deposit of the amount. There are a number of facts which required to be examined. We also note that the penalty is imposed on S.I. Patel under Rules 173Q and 225 neither of which prima facie would apply to him, as the Managing Director of the manufacturer. In these circumstances we accept the offer made by the Advocate for the applicant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and on such amount being deposited within two months from today we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty, and stay their recovery.
4. Compliance on 26th February 2001.