Page 212 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

890 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

had no knowledge about the developments concerning the imported goods. It
appears to be a self-exculpatory statement given under Section 108 of the Cus-
toms Act, but no materials evidence on record has been placed by the respond-
ent-department that would substantiate involvement of the appellant firm in the
alleged transaction except that of the reply of the appellant regarding his source
of acquirement of knowledge of discrepancy in the item supplied to the appel-
lant firm. [Sic] Suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of proof to estab-
lished guilt of the appellant. Further the ground taken in the Order-in-Original
and Order-in-Appeal with reference to sub-section (iii) of Section 30 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 is of no use to impose penalty on the appellant in view of the fact
that import manifest or import report, even if considered as incorrect and done
with fraudulent intention since was not established to have been done by the
appellant, amendment may only be refused on that ground that would have
bearing on the exporter or the intended purchaser and not on the appellant.
6. In view of the position of law and facts on record as dismissed
above, it can be held that penalty imposed on the appellant is unsustainable and
the same is required to be set aside. Since appellant had not placed any claim
over the imported goods, no finding is required to be given on the confiscation
order and its redemption upon payment of fine at this stage which is not under
challenge in the forum by the claimants. Hence the order.
ORDER
7. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty
of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed on M/s. Vallabh Wool Industries. The order passed by
the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Mumbai-III vide Order-in-
Appeal No. 225 (Import Noting)/2013(JNCH)/IMP-174, dated 18th March, 2013
is modified accordingly.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 28-11-2019)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 890 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. III]
S/Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD
Final Order No. A/12369/2019-WZB/AHD, dated 16-12-2019 in Appeal No.
C/13786/2014
Imports under Advance Authorization - Demand - Debit made in valid
Advance Authorizations at the time of imports but the Advance Authoriza-
tions expired at the time of final assessment - Delays in finalization of provi-
sional assessment not to have any impact on the benefits available under the
said Authorizations even when validity of Authorization expires during this
period - Authorizations valid at the time of import and having sufficient
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  212