1999 (6) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resent application, the applicant firm is praying for dispensation with the pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Arguing on the application, Shri D.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned Advocate clarifies that they are not challenging the valuation done by the Customs Authorities. He also su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iginal adjudicating authority and as such, are entitled to the refund of duty, when the value was lowered by the Commissioner (Appeals). As such the differential duty paid by them has become refundable to them and is lying with the Department. In these circumstances, he submits that the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh be waived for the purposes of Section 129E. 4. Resisting the arguments, Shri T. Prem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and suspicion, howsoever, grave cannot take the place of proof. 5. I have considered the submissions made from both sides. At the outset, I would like to observe that the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate is out of context and the ratio laid down therein, is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. Here, the applicants themselves have stated that the valuation adopted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X