Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai Respondent Appearance Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 09.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2015 FINAL ORDER No.40966/2015 Per R. Periasami The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 28.3.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (SeaportImport), Chennai. 2.1 Appellant entered into agreement with M/s.Projects and Development (India) Ltd., Noida (PDIL, for short) to revamp their Fertilizer plant at Neyveli obtaining the economic and technical clearance from the Government of India. Various plant, machinery and parts imported on behalf of appellant under various Bills of Entry during the period March 99 to August 99 and May 2000 to August 2000 were allowed to be cleared at concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No.20/99dt. 28.2.99 and Notification No.16/2000Cus.dt. 1.3.2000. Appellants also imported plant and machinery directly for revamping of Urea Synthesis Plant and cleared the same at concessional rate of duty in terms of the above notification. 2.2 In the year 2002, the appellants had shut down the plant and disposed the entire plant and machinery consisting of old as well as new machinery by eauction through their selling agents viz. M/s.MSTC Bangalore and M/s.Metro Machinery Traders, Delhi was successful bidder in the auction for an amount of Rs.132 crores on 1.4.2005. The imported goods as above which were cleared under the concessional rate of duty forming part of the plant and machinery were also disposed. Such disposal was alleged by Customs as violation of the condition of notification on the ground that imported goods have not been put to intended use but were sold. The imports were subject to the condition of consumption thereof within India for the intended purpose as required by the customs notification. The DRI Chennai seized the imported machinery vide mahazar dt. 14.9.2006 and handed over the same to the appellant. But those were released provisionally on execution of bond for Rs.23 crores and giving of bank guarantee of Rs.3.0 crores executed by NLC. 3. After detailed investigation by Zonal DRI Chennai, the appellants were issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) dt. 2.3.2006, answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Differential customs duty was demanded as per SCN and confiscation of goods was proposed. Also imposition of penalty on the appellant as well as penalties on the conoticees were proposed. Upon adjudication, the adjudicating authority rejected the concessional benefit availed under Notification No.20/99 and 16/2000 on the imported goods covered by various Bills of Entry and confirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs.10,02,42,538/ recoverable from the appellant for violation of conditions of aforesaid notifications read with Section 12 and 143 of the Customs Act and also appropriated an amount of Rs.5,46,915/. Adjudicating authority also ordered confiscation of the goods. But valued the same at Rs.23 crores under Section 111 (o) of the Act and allowed redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs.2,30,00,000/. He also imposed penalty of Rs.10,02,42,538/ under Section 112(a) of Customs Act and dropped the proceedings against the conoticees. The adjudicating authority also ordered for enforcement of bank guarantee given by the appellant and appropriated the same towards differential duty against provisional release of the seized goods ordered. Hence the present appeal. 4.1 Heard both sides on 9..4.2015 and proceeding recorded in the open court. 4.2 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted written synopsis and paper book. He submitted that the appellant had a fertilizer plant in Neyveli which consisted an Ammonia Plant as well as a Urea Plant. After some times of operation although disinvestment commission suggested disinvestment in the plant due to unviability thereof, to secure employment to several employees being concern of the appellant, Ammonia Plant was decided to be renovated. The appellant accordingly proceeded to make renovation thereof awarding the contract to Projects and Development (India) Ltd., Noida (PDIL in short). The said developer imported equipments through 22 Bills of Entry on behalf of the appellant for use in renovation of the plant availing duty concession in