Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 & 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 & 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 & had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '39194',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => '',
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => '',
			'findings' => '',
			'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
			'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify"> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p align="justify"> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p align="justify"> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p align="justify"> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p align="justify"> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p align="justify"> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p align="justify">2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p align="justify"> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p align="justify"> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p align="justify"> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p align="justify"> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p align="justify"> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p align="justify"> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p align="justify"> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p align="justify"> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p align="justify">2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p align="justify">2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p align="justify">3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
			'observations' => '',
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '39194',
		(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bee International and Shri a Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - Citation 39194 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '39194',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Bee International and Shri A.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => '',
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2005-05-27',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => '',
		'findings' => '',
		'judge' => 'S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu',
		'judgement' => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.</p><p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.</p><p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.</p><p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.</p><p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.</p><p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.</p><p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.</p><p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.</p><p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.</p><p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.</p><p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.</p><p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.</p><p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.</p><p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.</p><p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.</p><p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.</p><p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.</p><p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.</p><p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.</p><p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.</p><p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.',
		'observations' => '',
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '(2005)(101)ECC649',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Central Excise',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '39194',
	(int) 1 => 'bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/39194/bee-international-shri-vs-commissioner-central'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => ' 1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 &amp; 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 &amp; 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 &amp; 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 &amp; had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Government of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> (iii) DGFT had issued a Show cause notice dt. 23.8.95 for non-fulfilment of Export obligation. Addl DGFT vide his order recorded that the Export obligation for period of 10 years was Rs. 2,476.50 lakhs and export of Rs. 290.00 lakhs. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,186.45 lakhs. (iv) Last consignment was cleared in the month of Feb 96 and thereafter the manufacturing activity was stopped and no extension was sought for completing the export target.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> (v) The duty exempt material thus brought would be in contravention of the condition of 100% EOU licence and EXIM POLICY, full Custom Duty and Central Excise duties were liable to be paid and for violation of Custom Warehousing period and no extension sought penalties and interest were liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (i) In terms of Notification 13/81 and condition of Notification 53/97-Cus read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 a Custom duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,06,614 alongwith interest was to be demand. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Central Act, 1962 on M/s. Bee International. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the goods having remained in the warehouse.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (ii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 3,55,308 was demanded on goods of Indian origin alongwith interest.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (iii) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Rule 173Q was imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as it existed) for the contravention of the Central Excise contraventions holding the goods so brought to be liable to confiscation for not having been used for the purpose they were brought.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (v) Penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed on Smt. Abha Bhargava, Director in charge under Rule 209A and Rs. 40 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of Export obligations and violation of the provision of relevant notification and Customs Act, 1962. She being Director Incharge and responsible for day to day affairs of the unit.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>2.1 After hearing both sides and on considering the material it is found- (a) Penalty under Rule 173Q on an assessee under 100% EOU scheme cannot be upheld on a Reading of Chapter VIIIA of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as was applicable at the relevant time under which Rule 173Q falls especially Rule 173A(2) therein which provides "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a manufacturer who has been allowed in discharge his duty liability in accordance with the provision of Chapter VA; Rule 100A to 100H under Chapter VA of the 1944, rules apply to an assessee who is an 100% EOU as in this case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (b) Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be therefore upheld as the liability to confiscation of goods in this case as found under Rule 173Q could not be upheld. The Rule 173Q not being applicable.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (c) The duty demands for violation of Rule 173P read with Rule 196 as made out cannot be upheld since Rule 173P also falls under chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which does not apply to 100% EOU as well as Rule 196.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (d) There is no conflict that for period upto Feb 96, manufacturing activity took place and components were used. There is no evidence of evasion or otherwise of a removal of components from the premises. Therefore, benefit of the Customs Exemption notification have to be granted. As regards the Components not used and still in the bonded warehouse they are on record. Duty on such components can be demanded only on their removal or expiry of Bond Period. The Customs Act, 1962, provides for an extension of the three year Bond period for such goods, an in this case, which are not likely to deteriorate. The Commissioner should have granted such an extension in this case or come to a definite conclusion why such an extension was not to be granted in case of this EOU which is essentially set upto encourage exports and imported goods are permitted to be imported and kept Duty Free in their Warehouse for that purpose. In any case, if the Bonded Warehouse licence is to be found to be cancelled, then Section 61 itself of Customs Act, 1962 provides for a notice of seven days to recover duty/interest on such goods to clear them or to transfer then to another warehouse or Export them.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> In such cases when goods are permitted to be transferred for re-warehousing to another warehouse or Re-exported, then interest cannot be demanded. The present order without granting the option of re-warehousing or Export and demand of duty and interest therefore cannot be upheld. Board has permitted the re-exporrt of warehoused goods even after the expiry of warehousing period, on waiver of interest Circular 3/03-Cus., dated 14.1.03. Present order denying them of this benefit, granted by the Board, cannot be upheld. (e) Notification No. 67/95-Cus.(NT) dt. 1.11.95 waives interest on the appellants who are an EOU and vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus., (NT dt. 1.11.95 waiver of interest as the appellants are an EOU was called for vide Boards Circular No. 31 /96-Cus. dt.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 7.6.96 the benefit of this notification shall be retrospectively applicable to goods in the Warehouse. Non-application of Boards orders and reasons are not forthcoming in the order.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (f) There is force in the plea made that Notification 13/81-Cus., has on provision for levy of interest and since the demand in this case is made in terms of Notification 13/91-Cus., no interest is leviable on the appellant (g) The CBEC vide circular dated 13.12.85 has clarified that for an 100% EOU a policy decision of liberal grant of extension of the Bonding/warehousing period as also waiver is applicable and vide circular dated 7.4.86 for capital goods ordered an automatic extension of warehousing period and vide circular dated 27.12.93 have clarified " a policy decision has been taken by the Board for grant of licence to 100% EOUs under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, valid for a period of five years. Such licence may be extended for a further period of five years or for such period of export obligation as prescribed by SIA" and vide circular dated 13.1.94, Board observed that Bonding is a formality since limits are already agreed by the inter Ministerial Committee and SIA in the Department of industry and clarified that Bonding could be decided at the level of Assistant Commissioner itself and vide circular dated 16.2.96 clarified that Section 65 would adequately cover the case of a EOU which wished to continue manufacturing operation i.e. after the expiry of initial bonding period. According to these policy directives we would be induced to accept the plea that Bonding period is co-terminus with export obligation period imposed under SIA or debonding of an EOU whichever is earlier and automatic extension of the expired Bonding periods is required to be granted by the officers to coincide with date of opting out or withdrawing from EOU scheme. This view is confirmed that extension of Bonding period could be granted in appropriate case even when the application are made after the expiry of the warehousing period.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (Circular No. 12/98-Cus., dated 6.3.98 refers). Commissioners order in total disregard of these Policy Directives for implementation and extension of the Warehousing period and adopting the course of determination of duty and interest demands cannot be upheld. The extensions herein are called for and are granted.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (h) The order therefore as regards duty demand and interest is therefore required to be set aside.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>2.1 (a) Since the violation of non-clearance of goods on expiry of warehousing period are not being upheld there is no cause to conclude duty demands or violation of the Customs Notification and no confiscation of goods or liability under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 has been shown to have arrived by the Commissioner, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot therefore be upheld.(b) The penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, of 10,000 as imposed cannot be upheld as during the relevant period the penalty provided there under was only of Rs. 2000 and no reasons exist to call for a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the facts and the Brand Policy instructions on extension of warehousing period is applicable in this case.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>2.2 When extension of the warehoused goods is not being dealt with as per Boards instructions therein the cancellation of the warehouse herein is not called for the cancellation order arrived is to set aside.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2.3 The Ld. Advocate for the appellant makes a plea for surrender of the Warehoused goods. The same is to be made to the proper officer and be dealt with that officer as per laws, application can be made for disposal of Indian Origin goods also as per the notification itself.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 22
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3.2 Appeals are to be allowed as per findings herein above and Ordered to be disposed as per the findings.

Court	Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On	May-27-2005
Judge	S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Reported in	(2005)(101)ECC649
Appellant	Bee International and Shri A.
Respondent	Commissioner of Central Excise

Bee International and Shri A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment