UNIWORTH LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 72,85,010/ - in respect of machines mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice and a further duty demand of Rs. 30,12,355/ - in respect of machines mentioned in Annexure 'B' to the show cause notice and imposing penalty of like amounts totaling Rs. 1,02,97,365/ -, on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two contentions before us, namely that the goods in respect of which the duty demand is confirmed under the impugned order are in the control of the Customs authorities and, therefore, no such deposit of duty was required to be made under Section 129E of the Customs Act for the hearing of the present appeal and further that the explanation to Section 114A, which was inserted along with the provisos in Section 114A, by virtue of Section 81 of the Finance Act, 2000, did not apply and, therefore, penalty could not have been imposed under Section 114A.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant relied upon detention memo in support of his contention that since the goods in respect of which the duty demand was confirmed were in the control of the Customs authorities, pre -deposit cannot be insisted upon. On perusal of that detention memo, a copy of which is placed on record, it appears that the goods, particulars of which were detailed thereunder were being detained by keeping them in the custody of the applicant. The goods detained would ordinarily be considered under the control of the Customs authorities. It transpires that the machines mentioned therein are only three compressors, one boiler and two air -conditioners. These are not the machines mentioned in Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the show cause notice in respect of which the duty demand is confirmed. The machines in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice were gill box, comber, assembly winder, TFO and gas seinging machine. The machine, which was mentioned in Annexure 'B', was opening and blending machine. Therefore, the detention memo as placed on record has no relevance at all with the goods mentioned in Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the show for which the duty demand is confirmed. The reliance placed on this detention memo issued in respect of three compressors, one boiler and two air -conditioners by the learned counsel is, therefore, wholly misconceived.