9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in lieu of confiscation order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar by impugned Order-in-Original No. 68/97, dated 9-12-1997; (ii) Rs. 2 lakhs as penalty on M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. under impugned order No. 57/97, dated 13-10-1977 passed by CC, Amritsar and a further; (iii) Rs. 2 lakhs against M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. as penalty under same impugned order No. 57/97. 2. Shri G.L. Rawal, ld. Counsel, who appeared for all the three applicants submitted that M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. had imported a certain quantity of Acrylic Sheets/off-cuts and had also sold certain quantities to M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (M/s. Polyglass) on high seas sale basis. On testing the samples ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of the Customs Act read with the relevant provisions of the Import Policy for 1992-1997, the goods were accordingly, directed to be confiscated and redemption fine and penalty imposed on the applicants as mentioned above. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned orders had been passed ex-parte without notice of hearing to the parties and without affording personal hearing. He submitted that the Chemical Examiner s Reports relied on by the Department did not show categorically that the said reports relates to the samples drawn from the imported goods. He referred to the letter dated 21-8-1997, sent to the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory by the Assistant Commissioner, Ludhiana in which reference had been made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation (P) Ltd. was disproportionate and uncalled for. 5. Ld. Counsel also submitted that since the facts relating to the A.No. C/128/98-NB, filed by M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. - Appeal No. C/182/98-NB were common, they would adopt the same legal submissions made in Appeal filed by M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. and plead for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount and for stay of operation of the order and the order imposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine. 6. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR, who appeared for the respondent Commissioner submitted that the case related primarily to contravention of ITC provisions and import of goods without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
