IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG~.€:1;OR§.§l
DATED 'I'HlS THE 28TH DAY" OEJUNE u k
PRESENT
THE HQNBLE MR.JUS'FICE V..§}OI5AL'A E
AND
THE HON 'BLE MR.JU§TICE w\LI;.qATH
CENTRAL SALES TAx.Ar¥?}3AL %mo.L3/2608 c/w
CENTRAL SALES TAXARPEAL. rmz/zzros c/w
CENTRAL... 'PA}(_AI_fPE.5s.l; No.3 1 /2007
CENTRAL ':~$,gr;_3,"«;_:,+,";;_;3.L_:;_g.J.%i:%g2oos
BE'I'WEEN;7 . - L
Mr.Ravisi1 '4 'i:1''=2V _ V "
I'M/S'.Bi"g" L1m' ited
U'uit~5.,." 1o~o%*F.oU
No. 2 1:2! 1.17;"MachGha1}i
V' . Wshwa axnfifizist
Banga1<ire-§60- 1. APPELLANT
9"{By sz~i,I5;.S.Ravisnankar, Advecate)
V _ "§'he"{3'om1nissioner cf Custems
'j . .;P,B.No.54oo, C.R.Buildings
Queens Road,
Bangalore-560 001. V RESPONDENT
violation of any provision ef the Customs Act,
the Rules 8; Regulations framed thereunder, etc. ~ .
These csms coming on for hearing
GOPALA GOWDA J., delivered the
In thase appeals azgdh 2)’
by Mr.Ravish Kamath, /3.
Big Bags India Pvt. gm. is filed
by Dimctor of
M/ possessor of raw
materials Appcllant Company
_(v;1.testi£?I;iiI”lgA.tl1e.Va1;der passed by the Customs
1*!-.;;:f§sug;.~=:1fi:1§t;e:V:fi’z:1bux1ai (hcrciImi’£cr in short called as
as levy of penalty for violation’ of
vcc:tai1i””term.s’zii1d conditions or 100% Exempficm to the
vidc Not.if1mt:i.on No.52/03-(3%
issued uhder ttm Customs Act of 1962
T in short ‘Act’). In so far as other two
hufippellants are comznemad, they have challenged the
‘m/
penalty imposed upon them 11/ sec. 110-O of
non-complying with the terms eoridfiiotisii of
Notification granting
applicant in the first to VA
fulther direction issued
11/ soc.112–B of the ‘-of the goods
fraxxfmg cortaio in which are
for the
goes, in so fm’ as
appeal and in so far as appeal
Nos.3/ are concerned the loomed
” the contended that the penalty
” 11/ sec. 1 12–»B of the Act, pmt1cI’ Jlarly
V_ANo;.{3f20()8 for non-compliance’ with the terms
conoiiflons of Exemption Notification wanted in
‘ of the appellant Company, who is an exporter
‘ regard to importing of goods with exemption of
‘ iopayment: of customs duty to it to use such
imported goods as raw materials for manufacture of the
\\\L/
goods and export: 100% of the same.
exempted imported goods were sold..Q;1 ” ” V
appeilant in C.S.T.A.No.3l/2007 7-1:
penalty upon them under
non-compliance with thgf: poxtclitianayyfiof the
exemption granted in “4’i3;§’oi1z’_v ‘4 ii}
Appeal No.2] itfixder Section
1 1 1-0 upon; urging varicrus
gI’ound$vand_ to impugned orders by
mlswerifig “thfiy _;qi1cstions framed in the
Appeals: at
Aixrtdigputettmfacts of the case are referred to by
f.~.ppenare Tribunal in the impugmd
H V’ the levy of penalty on the tllants is
_. the prooedum contemplated under the
‘. “_f’)I2’\’}vVi8i:{}IlS of the Custams Act read with Rules mud alter
T opportunity to the appellants to file thch’
‘4 A. statement of objections and participate in the
\\~x/
proceedings. The Assessing Ofiieer has
by recording a finding holding =
duty free imported goods in
Commny in the first sé.iee._’asVVViriput
goods for manufactqxe of with
certain terms and ‘4 ie violated by it.
The Adgudicgegg the
customs Vc~<1"I§é:Vii:'t§§tV§f'1'VVV'No.3 (:1) (1) (ii) of
the dated 31-3-2003 as
" 72(d) of the Customs Act,
1962 a112d ; 11eo: No.4(a) (ii) the Notification
Excise dated 31-3-2003 as
saliefying the material' evidence on
Assessing Officer has held, that the goods
duty free by the appellant company have been
A ":L."' to M/sflhakrapam' Vyapar Pvt.Ltd which is in
h xéiohtion of the exemption notification ganted hm favour
of the appellant company in Appeal No.2/2008. The
appellant in C.S.'I'.A.No.31/2007 is the Director of the
\N/
to that extent the penalty levied awnst the
justified and not levying the ' '
provisions of Section 28 of
excise duty also upon the " L'
appeal for contxaventititt of eeaztditions of
exemption order ef raw
material by ' the
goods in e fadlitate it to
100% duty free
'same to ibreign countries
and earn
V. xeomieei for the appellant Sari
submits that both customs, excise
levied upon the company and its Chief
'Executive'3~0tfieer is erroneous in law. This aspect of the
is not oonsidemd by the Appellate Tribmnl While
eoizsiderirg the wee put forth before it by the company.
' :~V'Therefore, the learned counsel requests this Court to
NZ
answer the re-framed subfiantial questions of =
favour of the 9.3% and requests this Lmxrt' % *
the above appeals filed both by V'
C.E.O tar setting aside the
passed by the Tribunal.
4. learned counsel fat 2;, ap’pcIlant in
C.S.T.A.No.31/209.7 that the
concurrent V01.’ the Appelmte
‘I’ribuna1 ‘l’§W-..,__f’°0r the reason that there: is
no . for Ian. I: threats” 1’ ‘
receipt’ pf ‘exéijfiptéd duty goods by the
for the purpmc of exporting
as raw material for mamfiactuze of
H V’ 100% :’ggods to export it to some fore-.1g1′
‘ the absence of knowledge attributed to the
above appeal for rmmng” threnmpalted’
T duty fxhe goods or raw materials fi’0El the
‘Company and the same is not establifiwd by the
\N/
Assessing Officer to pass order, therefore _
is not liabic to pay penalty levied open ” =
submits there may be a
confiscate the goods bin”. v
the knowledge amihuteci a:ne._ having
received the duty the duty is
not prtsved, by his
company ;is Section 112
(b) ortne submitted that the
fonov;i;1g’«—-i;o “Appeal No.31/2007 woum
oertainjy’ £_'(‘§r’o.’._cof1:sidcz’&tion of this Court and
V. ‘_ ;*oqiioat£:g1__ttns Court to answer the same in his
‘ his appeal:
1} Whether the concurrent finding of fact
.. recorded by the Tribmxal is erroneous
‘ \- ” for non-consideration of the matefld
evidence produced by the appellant
before the Assessmg Authority wherein
hchasstatwthathehadma
knowledge that imported goods
receivw by him are supplied to the
Company in cont1’avox1tion of innns
NM
12
and conditions of the Notification
No.52/02? < T *
5. With reference to the said legal
Mxxshashikanth, the learned V’
respondent / Assessing Authcifity 31/ ‘ ~
has sought to justify the «l
recorded by the Trib1mgl and” it isomltended
that it has reduced appellant
from Rs.1,(l{).,(3*i1u_l(§j-“”i”<)?' which ammt is
very on the part of the
'I'ribunalA'i11 Nonetheless, the order
passggi by dlyes not call for interference by
lzlsis that the A Authority
Authority have applied their
_ miratl'–corificiflizlsly re-apprec1a' ted the facts and mat7c1:1al'
record and recorded a finding of ma;
that that was a lawwlcclge we the Director of
l jjlfitflfil Company in Appeal No.31/2007 by receiving 100%
ll imported goods supplied by the appellant Corapaauy in
C.S.'I'.A. No.2/2008 contravcning the
conditions. Therefore, the question of Law
for consideration of this Comt
the appeals with costs.
6. We have heard the for V
the parties and me
finding of fafit Tribunal with
regard to 1evyi:§;Lg%’ pt ‘Chief Executive’ %
Ofiicer of availed 100%
the imported goods
who is%%n:1§e “CSTA No.2/2008 and the
lZ)1re<'*' .;.cz*_of who is the posse% of
. to the Company, we have to
EI;.r:V1a\§'.V7V€;'1"- the question of law framed by the
_ appe.1laJ§ts C.S.T.A N032 and 3/2008 do arise or not
Lof t finding of fact based on
facts and material on record, viz, that the
kj %. ' cfimpany has availed 100% 13.0.0: and had the benefit
\\v
for 100% export.
ewsof the Veovnditions of the exemption granted in
_ oi’ taepellant in CSTA No.2/2008, but still the
material imported is not misused by the
by selling in the open market, the said
is not mpmd by the Asmmg Authority
who is the fact finding amhority. The said fimfing of
14
of raw materials imported with free custom
duty on certain terms and conditions’ ., ..
Department. The exporter ofthe
to utilim those 100% duty
materials for the purpqse of gcgode to
export it to foreign exchange to
the country. company to
the Show given before
the Assessing’ were given to
M] Ltd., is not for saie but
Company ” raw materials fim it
‘IV’.h:eref’e’1e,A it that there was contravention
fact is confirmed by both the First Appellate e
and Tribunal by recording valid and
after re-appreciatzion of material ‘V
with reference to the legal
by the appellants in ‘-&; 3! ‘V
careful perusal of
passed by the Tribunal’ mecment
with the View the does not call
for ‘-tn… of customs duty,
excise ~ on the Company
$63.2 & 3/2008. Therefore, we
v _hol;:§ me liable to be dismiswd holding
–._substant:ial questions of law would not
reason tkmt the fact findmg” authority”
?,_nas a finding of fact holding that the cmmpmd
A 5.’ has cunfiavmmed the terms and conditions of
‘ the exemption notification in not utilising the 100%
exempted imported materials for manuihcture of goods
\m/
to export the same to the foreign countries and
finding is concurred with by the appellate J
7. In so tier as Director of
duty free imported goods _ is is’
undisputed fact that the supiily of” <i'u_t_y'-
goods by the 10()%.'::<i~u_1:y with
certain terms and dated
2 1/03; wh1owledge of the
appeflmrét j a suppiier Comwly
is 100% of fact recorded by me
Tfibggial ta cencurrent finding of fact is that
"«..(3ompany had the knowledge of recem' 'Hg
imported goods. The said finding of
_fact"is by the Tribunal and reduced penalty
an the appellant in C.S.T.A.No.31f200'7.
we do not find any ground uryd by the
b big "iea"m: ed counsei Mr.Gur1n'a_.j. in this appeal axe tenable in
9' law, and tllerefere there is no need for us to interfere
1'?
with the order of penalty imposed upon the
the oommny which has received 100%
from the company.
8. For the aforesaid
the Director of ‘raw .’ am
dismissed. No order 933 L ‘4 _
,59a-