P. BHASKARAN PILLAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the CCE (A) wherein he confirmed the order passed by the original authority in confiscating the car in question and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lacs besides a penalty of Rs. 1.25 lacs.

(2.) THE case of the Department is that the relaxation laid down under Public Notice 197/90 -93, dated 16 -8 -1991 was not satisfied in this case. In the impugned order, the CCE(A) held that ITC Public Notice 197/93 is not fulfilled in this case. He also pointed out that if the date of registration had been shown correctly the car would not have qualified for the benefit of Public Notice. He pointed out that there is a deliberate attempt to tamper with the date of registration and he confirmed the findings of the original authority in this regard. In order to appreciate the arguments of both the sides, we reproduce below the findings of the original authority.

(3.) SHRI . C.G. Varkey, learned Consultant for the appellant contended before us that the whole mistake happened because of the translation done by the Arabic Professor and there was no malafides which can be attributed to the appellant. On a query from the Bench, he stated that the date mentioned in the affidavit was a genuine mistake and he stated that he based the affidavit on the translation made by the Arabic Professor. However, he contended that exemption was granted to the appellant by the CCI and E in terms of Para 21 of the import policy. He therefore, contended that in view of the above exemption granted to the appellant by the competent authority no ITC policy violation can be said to have been committed by the appellant.