Page 277 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] A.V. AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. v. COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & CGST, NEW DELHI 259

ly dealt with goods imported by main noticee in clandestine and illegal man-
ner, thereby making imported goods liable for confiscation - Clear nexus be-
tween all co-noticees including appellant established violation of Notification
No. 20/2004-Cus. - No infirmity in order imposing penalty - Section 112B of
Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5, 6]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
Arya Abhushan Bhandar v. Union of India — 2002 (143) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Para 3]
Commissioner v. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. — 2010 (260) E.L.T. 514 (All.) — Referred ...................... [Para 3]
Commissioner v. Sayed Ali — 2011 (265) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) — Referred ................................................ [Para 3]
Cosmo Ferrites Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (318) E.L.T. A157 (S.C.) — Referred ........................ [Para 4]
Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner — 2016 (336) E.L.T. 15 (Del.) — Referred ...... [Para 3]
J & K Cigarettes Ltd. v. Collector — 2009 (242) E.L.T. 189 (Del.) — Referred .................................... [Para 3]
Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P & H) — Referred ...................... [Para 3]
Lesag HBB (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (346) E.L.T. 549 (Del.) — Referred .............................. [Para 3]
Mamta Garg v. Commissioner — 2018 (359) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal) — Relied on .......................... [Paras 4, 5]
Samtel Colour Ltd. v. Collector — 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1256 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..................... [Paras 4, 5]
Samtel Colour Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (196) E.L.T. A145 (S.C.) — Referred .......................... [Para 4]
Shree Naklank Limited v. CESTAT — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 407 (Guj.) — Relied on ........................ [Paras 4, 5]
Silicone Concepts International Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner
— 2019 (368) E.L.T. 710 (Tribunal) — Relied on .................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector — 2000 (122) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Referred ................................. [Para 3]
Teracom Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 272 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................... [Para 3]
Union of India v. Onkar S. Kanwar — 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) — Referred ................................ [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K. Poddar, Authorised Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - This order disposes of three appeals, order under challenge
being common. The present appeal was earlier disposed of as rejected vide Final
Order No. 52153-52155/2018, dated 5-6-2018. An application praying for restora-
tion of appeal as filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide order of this Tri-
bunal dated 21 February 2019. However, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order
dated 22-5-2019, has set aside both the said orders restoring the impugned ap-
peal and directing this Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The
appeal is accordingly heard.
2. Relevant factual matrix for the disposal of the appeal is as follows :
That the appellant herein is involved in import of Crude Palm Oil
(hereinafter called as CPO) at concessional rate of Customs Duty while
availing the benefit of Sl. No. 30 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated
1-3-2002 as amended by Notification No. 20/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004.
The said notification extends the concessional rate of customs duty of
20% ad valorem provided the imported CPO is meant for use in manufac-
ture of soap. The Department, however, gathered an intelligence that
M/s. Pioneer Soap and Chemicals are misusing the exemption extended
vide the said notification by violating the condition thereof as they are
diverting the CPO to the open market instead of using the same for the
given purpose. During investigation, Department observed that the

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  277