9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty of rupees five lakhs imposed on the applicants. 2. The applicants are a public sector corporation and have produced the required clearance f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposable. 4. In the present case certain goods were imported and bonded and had not been cleared after the prescribed period. Show cause notice dated 12-5-1999 was issued alleging that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act, that the duty was recoverable and that penalty under Section 112 was leviable. After hearing the importers the Commissioner passed orders conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from invoking these provisions, also alleged liability confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act. For ease of reference this provision is reproduced below :- Any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless this non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re scheme it is not known why the customs raised the bogey of the Section 111(o) and why the Commissioner took recourse thereto. Perhaps it was in the failure of the importers to show that the provisions did not apply. 8. In view of our findings, we allow the appeal and set aside this order. We remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for him to pass suitable in terms of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
