M/S Shiva Taxfabs Ltd vs C.C. - Amritsar

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. ASR-CUSTOM-PRV-APP-330-14-15 dated 15.04.2015 passed by CCE (Appeals) Chandigarh]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 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 Shiva Taxfabs Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

C.C. - Amritsar Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Priyanka Goel (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. Rajeev Gupta, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 24.09.2015

Final Order No. 54092 /2015_

Per S K Mohanty:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh by upholding the Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 9397078, dated 23.02.2013 for clearance of consignment of 102.900 MT of pet bottle scrap waste falling under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. The impugned goods were imported from United Kingdom. During the first check, the consignment was found to contain Hazardous Waste like plastic scrap containing bottles, wrappers, plastic etc. instead of pet bottle scrap. As per Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, 2008, permission of Ministry of Environment and Forests was required to import the waste. As the permission was not produced by the appellant, the impugned goods were confiscated and proceedings were initiated by the Customs Department, which culminated into the Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2013. The adjudicating authority vide its order dated 16.05.2013 ordered for confiscation of impugned goods under Section 11(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option of payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and to re-export the impugned goods at appellants own expenses. Apart from that, penalty of Rs. 1,40,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 ibid. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is before this Tribunal.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

4. It revealed from the records that on examination, the goods were found different from the description of goods declared in the Bill of Entry. Thus, there is a mis-declaration of goods and confiscation U/S 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified. The Ld. Advocate requested for reduction of quantum of redemption fine and argued against imposition of penalty on the ground that there is no element of mensrea in this case.

5. I find that the appellant purchased the goods on high seas sale basis from M/s Jay Disha Impex Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of contract entered into between them. It is noted that the appellant is a user of pet bottles scrap and had been importing such goods regularly. There is no case of mis-declaration regarding import of the said goods. Further, there is no material available on record that the appellant had any knowledge of mis-declaration of goods. The Ld. Advocate contended that the appellant themselves noticed the discrepancy regarding declaration of goods on the Bill of Lading and requested for first check vide letter dated 22.02.2013. I find force in the submission of Ld. Advocate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty is not warranted.

6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the imposition of penalty is not justified and the quantum of redemption fine should be reduced.

7. In view of the above discussions, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and penalty is set aside. The appeal partly is allowed.

(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)

Neha

1 | Page

C/52579/2015-Cu[SM]