M/s Techtran Polylenses Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST (Vice-Versa)
Customs
2018 (8) TMI 1242 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – 2019 (370) E.L.T. 701 (Tri. – Hyd.)
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 10-8-2018
C/31228 & 31278/2017 – FINAL ORDER No. A/30926-30927/2018
Customs
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri M. Sivaraman, Advocate for the Assessee.
Shri M. Chandra Bose, Additional Joint Commissioner, Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue.
ORDER
[Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS-000-APP-072-17-18 dated 10.08.2017.
2. The appellant is a 100% EOU who is engaged in the manufacture/ processing of ophthalmic lenses/spectacle lenses. They were issued with permission under Section 58 of Customs Act, 1962 to be a customs private bonded warehouse. They had imported one “opto-tech free form lab set up with laser engraving mach, CNC blocker with premium software and accessories e
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ority confiscated the goods under Section 111(o) of the Act, 1962 but gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- and ordered recovery of Rs. 47,66,416/- being the duty payable along with interest in accordance with the bond executed by them read with Notification No. 52/2003- Cus. A sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- pre-paid was appropriated towards the duty so confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 47,66,416/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 (presumably under Section 112 of the Act, 1962). A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on S/Shri Chiguruapti Jayaram, Non-Executive Chairman and C. K. Hariharan, GM (Technical) of the appellant company under Section 117 of the Act, 1962 was also imposed.
3. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority after following due process of law, as reduced the penalty imposed but upheld the Order-in-Original on the confirmation of the demands so r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tion No. 52/2003 -CUS in relation to capital goods which were imported without payment of duty.
7. I find that there is no dispute that the capital goods which were imported without payment of duty claiming the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003 were transferred out of the EOU after their importation and bonding in the EOU. Though, there is a claim of the appellant the machinery was not installed in DTA unit, it is a finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the machinery was installed and used for the manufacture of the goods in DTA unit. I find that in the case in hand, both the Lower Authorities have recorded a concurrent finding and the machinery which were imported by claiming the exemption for installation in EOU, were not installed, were found in DTA. Appellant was not able to produce any documents to show that they done so by seeking the permission of the Revenue Authorities.
8. In my considered view, in the absence of any such evidence, the action of the appellant to remov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
