Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs(Prev.), ... vs M/S.B.G.(Overseas) Corporation on 27 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.Cus.Ap.239/06
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/PORT/118/2005 dated 19.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI S.K. GAULE, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
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 should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), Kolkata
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s.B.G.(Overseas) Corporation
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri S.Misra, Addl.Commr.(A.R.) for the Revenue NONE for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri S.K. Gaule, Member(Technical) Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:- 27.06.2012 Date of Pronouncement :- 27.06.2012 ORDER NO.
Per Shri S.K.Gaule.
1. Heard the ld.A.R.. None present for the respondent despite notice, nor there is any request for adjournment. Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/PORT/118/2005 dated 19.09.2005.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a specific information was gathered by the officers of Special Investigation Branch that M/s.B.G. (Overseas) Corporation, 6, Wood Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata-16 holding an advance licence No.0210022341 and DEEC Book No.A-039179 both dated 09.5.2001 were engaged in duty free import of plastic product, under product group code Sl.No.63 of SION as mentioned in the Handbook of Procedures (Vol-II) under DEEC scheme and instead of utilizing the said duty free material for manufacturing resultant export product, are diverting the material in open market without fulfilling the stipulated export obligation in terms and conditions of advance licence and in violation of conditions of Notification No.48/99-Cus dated 29.4.99. Thereby show cause notice was issued with a proposal for confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.2,05,95,994/-, demand of customs duty amounting to Rs.1,06,27,069/- and there was a proposal for penalty under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 on the respondent M/s.B.G. (Overseas) Corpn. and Shri Anil Kr. Mahensaria, Proprietor of the respondent. There was also a proposal for penal action under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 against both the respondents. Ld.Commissioner confirmed the proposal so far as confiscation of goods and demand of customs duty and penalty under section 112(a). However, he did not impose any penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the same Revenue is in appeal.
3. The contention of the ld.A.R. is that there was a proposal for penal action under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. Ld.Commissioner has not imposed any penalty under the said provision. The contention is that ld.Commissioner has also not given any finding on this aspect.
4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. Undisputedly there was a proposal for penal action under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. We find that ld.Commissioner has not imposed any penalty nor he has given any finding on the proposal for penal action under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances the case is remanded to ld.Commissioner for deciding only for the limited purpose of deciding the issue of penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. Appeal is allowed to the above extent by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/ sd/ (D.M.MISRA) (S.K. GAULE) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) sm 3 Appeal No.Cus.Ap.239/06