Prashant India Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....charges and therefore the demand ought not to have been confirmed and for the same reason penalty should not have been imposed either on the manufacturer or on its director.2. opposing the prayer the learned sdr draws our attention to para 5 of the impugned order and submits that the material placed before the lower authorities as well as before the tribunal is general in nature only showing the payment of transportation charges without being linked to the goods transported during the period in dispute, in the absence of details such as invoice number and name of the customer, registration number of the vehicle, details of the goods transported, etc. he, therefore, submits that the penalty has been rightly imposed and prays that the applicants may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.3. on hearing both sides and noting that the payment of transportation charges is prima facie evidenced by the documents filed before us, which were also before the lower authorities and noting that the demand of duty already stands deposited we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on both the applicants and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.

Judgment:

1. Arguing on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,37,401/- imposed on M/s. Prashant India Limited, who are engaged in the manufacture of textured yarn and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on its Director, the learned Chattered Accountant submits that the duty demand of Rs. 1,37,401/- (which has been deposited by the applicant) was confirmed on the ground that transportation charges collected by them from their customers were required to be included in the assessable value. He submits that the applicants had produced sufficient evidence for payment of transportation charges for transportation of their excisable goods to the carriers which plea has been rejected on the ground of lack of co-relation between the goods transported and the transportation bills. He submits that the material produced by the applicant should have been held to be sufficient to establish payment of transportation charges and therefore the demand ought not to have been confirmed and for the same reason penalty should not have been imposed either on the manufacturer or on its Director.

2. Opposing the prayer the learned SDR draws our attention to para 5 of the impugned order and submits that the material placed before the lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal is general in nature only showing the payment of transportation charges without being linked to the goods transported during the period in dispute, in the absence of details such as invoice number and name of the customer, registration number of the vehicle, details of the goods transported, etc. He, therefore, submits that the penalty has been rightly imposed and prays that the applicants may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.

3. On hearing both sides and noting that the payment of transportation charges is prima facie evidenced by the documents filed before us, which were also before the lower authorities and noting that the demand of duty already stands deposited we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on both the applicants and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.