Shri Vinod Gupta vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. ASR-CUSTM-PRV-APP-180-181-14-15 dated 26/08/2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh I.]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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?

Shri Vinod Gupta Appellants

M/s. Rinox Engineering

M/s. Anand Concast Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Ludhiana

Appearance:

Shri Randhir Singh, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 26.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51734-51736 /2015-(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order imposing redemption fine on M/s/ Anand Concast Ltd. and penalties of all the appellants before me.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Anand Concast Ltd. is a manufacturer of bicycles parts and rear axles shafts and exporting the same and claimed the benefit under DEPB scheme. The appellant initially filed one shipping bill on 8.3.11 claiming the DEPB benefit as claimed by their competitor on the same item M/s. Eastman International, Ludhiana who are manufacturing the same product and was given the benefit of DEPB scheme as clarified by DGFT vide their minutes of the meeting held on 19.1.2010. As the appellants are manufacturing the same product, therefore, appellants are also claiming DEPB benefit but the appellant was asked to file shipping bill provisionally for clearance of the goods which appellant accepted and filed shipping bill provisionally, the assessment of the same is still pending. The appellant filed another shipping bill No. 4904510 on 8.8.2011, provisionally for clearance of the goods by claiming DEPB benefit. The export of goods contained in the said shipping bill was denied, the said benefit on the ground that appellant has mis-declared the goods and the goods held liable for confiscation, therefore, redemption fine and penalties were imposed on main appellant and penalties on co-appellants. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants are before me.

3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

4. In this case, the short issue is that when the appellant has filed the shipping bill provisionally by claiming the benefit of DEPB scheme, in that circumstances, whether the goods should be confiscated and redemption fine can be imposed alongwith penalties or not?

5. In this case, initially appellant filed the shipping bill on 8.3.2011 by claiming the benefit of DEPB scheme on the basis of benefit granted to M/s. Eastman International Ltd.,Ludhiana,who is manufacturing the same product which the appellant is manufacturing. At that time, the appellant was asked to file shipping bill provisionally and same is still pending for adjudication. In these circumstances, if the appellant has filed a shipping bill provisionally,the question of mis-declaration or claim inadmissible DEPB scheme does not arise as the shipping bill has been filed provisionally and the same is required to be adjudicated finally. Therefore, question of confiscation of the impugned goods does not arise, when the goods are not liable for confiscation, redemption fine and penalty is also not imposable on all the appellants. With these observations, I set aside the impugned order, allow the appeals filed by the appellants with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2