9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 56/98, dated 1-4-1998 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and the issue concerns alleged mis-utilisation of DEEC scheme under Value Based Advance Licensing System which misuse has been upheld in the order impugned leading to confirmation of Customs duty of Rs. 6,18,487/- and interest of Rs. 1,72,413/-, as also imposition of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re forced to do this in view of the limited shelf life of the imported raw materials as against paucity of orders for the finished product from foreign buyers. Ld. Advocate further submits that when this position was agitated before the Export Trade Control authorities, they extended the period of export obligation up to 31-10-1996. Ld. Advocate further submits that it is not in dispute that befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability, penalty, etc. and allowed the appeal. Ld. Advocate further submits that in a subsequent Final Order No. 294/98 in their own case, this very Tribunal had relied on the Final Order No. 73/98 supra and had again allowed their appeal with respect to imposition of penalty on the Managing Director in the same matter. Ld. Advocate further submits that the reliance on the same Final Order No. 73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of this to dis encourage such misuse of this exemption notification, imposition of deterrent penalty should be carefully considered by us. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We note that the allegations as upheld in the Order-in-OriginaI impugned are not with respect to the diversion into the domestic market of the raw materials imported under the duty ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
