Page 212 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

122 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

not been prescribed and has been left to the discretion of the authority. The ex-
pression “which may extend to” does not relate to the minimum amount of pen-
alty but to the maximum amount of penalty which could be imposed.
4. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside
and the order of the Adjudicating Authority is re-stored. Appeal filed by the ap-
pellant is thus allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 122 (Tri. - Kolkata)
IN THE CESTAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA
S/Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
NISHWET OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA
Final Order No. 76936/KOL/2019, dated 16-12-2019 in Appeal No. C/388/2008
Import of goods for job work - Export of job worked imported goods -
Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. - Condition that im-
ported goods should undergo the process of job work within India and job
worked goods should be exported to overseas supplier, who had supplied im-
ported goods to job worker in India - Re-export of goods due to cancellation of
job order with any activity undertaken - At time of issuance of show cause no-
tice, the subject goods not available in India and that at the time of importa-
tion conditions of Notification duly complied with - Demand not sustainable
as it was confined to irregular importation of goods, which has not been spe-
cifically alleged by Department - Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 6]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri H.K. Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A.K. Singh, Authorized Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against
the impugned order, dated 18-9-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals), Customs House, Kolkata.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein had
imported a consignment of “lace” from M/s. Button Express Company Ltd.,
Bangkok and filed the Bill of Entry for assessment before the jurisdictional Cus-
toms Authorities. The appellant had claimed the benefit of duty exemption pro-
vided under Notification No. 32/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997. The conditions item-
ized in the said Notification for compliance were to the effect that the imported
goods should undergo the process of job work within India and the job worked
goods should be exported to the overseas supplier, who had supplied the im-
ported goods to the job worker in India. In this case, due to cancellation of job
order, the appellant had re-exported the imported goods in as it is condition to
the overseas supplier. Since, no job work activities were undertaken on the im-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  212