Page 278 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

260 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

appellant obtained the Central Excise Registration on 28-12-2004 and
thereafter under six BOEs imported 1371.878 MTs of CPO from January
2005 to August 2005 against concessional rate of duty of 20% ad valorem
availing thereby total exemption of customs duty of Rs. 1,27,72,140/-.
However, the said imported CPO was never used by them for manufac-
turing soaps as was prescribed under the said notification but was sold
in the open market. Thus alleging the evasion of the aforesaid amount of
customs duty that a show cause notice No. 1061/24, dated 24-4-2007 was
served upon the appellant firm i.e. M/s. Pioneer Soap & Chemical, pro-
posing the recovery of the aforesaid amount of duty along with interest
at appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty. The show cause notice
was also served upon the proprietor of aforesaid firm, Sh. Lalit Goyal, al-
leging that he has fabricated various other documents by making false
entries therein. Those fabricated documents are alleged to have been
submitted to the Assistant Commissioner for obtaining the order of re-
lease of imported CPO. Alleging that the order of release after furnishing
bonds and security as obtained by way of fraud, suppression and wilful
misstatement that the penalty was proposed upon Mr. Lalit Goyal. The
show cause notice was also served upon M/s. Genex Consultant Pvt.
Ltd., M/s. A.V. Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. H.G. Oil Carriers for
knowingly and willingly dealing with imported CPO in violation of the
condition of the impugned notification thereby causing the evasion of
the impugned customs duty. The show cause notice also proposed the
entire amount of imported CPO to be confiscated. The said proposal was
confirmed vide the order-in-original No. 10/D-I/2010, dated 30-4-2010.
Being aggrieved thereof that the impugned appeal has been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant made following submissions :
(i) The allegations against the main assessee i.e. Pioneer Soap & Chem-
icals was that it had imported CPO and paid concessional rate of
duty of 20% ad valorem as per Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated
1-3-2002 as amended by Notification No. 20/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-
2004 and that the goods had been diverted for manufacture of
soaps, detergents etc. instead of edible oil by Shri Lalit Goyal due to
which he was called upon to pay differential duty on the imported
CPO. Shri Lalit Goyal was arrested and was forced to pay the dif-
ferential duty of Rs. 1,27,72,140/- after which he approached the
Settlement Commission and got the case settled by the Settlement
Commission Principal Bench, New Delhi vide a Final Order No.
F-829/830/Cus/09/SC(PB), dated 24-2-2009. The Settlement Com-
mission also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8 lacs on Shri Lalit Goyal and
Rs. 10,000/- each on Shri Mahesh Kumar, Shri Sunil Goyal, Shri Brij
Mohan, H.G. Oil Carriers, Shri Harjinder Singh and Lokpriya Trad-
ers and closed the case. Therefore, the question of the Commissioner
of Excise in Delhi conducting parallel or other proceedings in re-
gard to the same case which is already settled by the Settlement
Commission does not arise as he has no jurisdiction whatsoever
against A.V. Agro Products in Kanpur and Genex Foods Pvt. Ltd. in
Ghaziabad and Shri Rohit Agarwal, Director of Genex Foods Pvt.
Ltd. in Ghaziabad. The Excise Commissioner Delhi is denied to be
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  278