Page 118 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

652 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

25. The PRC had earlier rejected the claim of the petitioner vide its
communication dated 17-12-2013 stating that the Committee was not satisfied
about the corroborating evidence produced by the petitioner. On challenge made
by the petitioner, this Court by an order dated 16-12-2014, passed in WP(C)
8924/2014, titled M/s. Wadpack Private Limited v. The Director General of Foreign
Trade & Anr, granted opportunity to the petitioner to make a fresh representation
along with all documents and further directed the DGFT to consider the same
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The PRC has again
rejected the claim of the petitioner by the Impugned Decision taken in the meet-
ing held on 2-2-2016, observing that the certificate issued by the Superintendent,
Central Excise cannot substitute documents prescribed in ANF-4F as it does not
prove that duty free imported goods were consumed in the resultant products
supplied to the SEZ Unit. As held by this Court in Shashi Cables Ltd. (supra), un-
less such decision of the PRC is found to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious or un-
reasonable or otherwise contrary to the statutory framework, no interference
with the such decision is permissible in exercise of power of judicial review. In
the present case, no such infirmity is found with the decision of the PRC.
26. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 652 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumar, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
Versus
MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD.
C.M.A. No. 1220 of 2008, decided on 7-1-2020
1
Redemption fine imposable even if goods have been released on bond
- Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5, 6]
Appeal disposed of
CASE CITED
Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) — Relied on .. [Paras 2, 3, 5, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri P. Rajkumar Jhabakh, for the Appellant.
Ms. Jayalakshmi, for Shri Muthuvenkataraman, for
the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.]. - The only limited point pressed
by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Revenue before us in the present case
is that the Learned Tribunal in its impugned order dated 4-10-2007 [2007 (218)
E.L.T. 712 (Tri.-Chennai)], has wrongly held in paragraph 6 of the order that the
redemption fine cannot be imposed by the Revenue Authority under Section 125
of the Customs Act, 1962, if the goods in question have already been released in
favour of the assessee on a bond.
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2007 (218) E.L.T. 712 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  118