9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aser Recycling under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : M/s. Laser Recycling, Gandhidham, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) is an industrial undertaking which was set up in Kandla Free Trade Zone (KFTZ) approved by the Development Commissioner of KFTZ for the manufacture of recycled scrap from various materials, plastics etc. Sale of finished goods of the specified varieties and quantity in Domestic Tariff Area was also permitted by the Development Commissioner, KFTZ. 3. The applicant was issued show cause notice dated 29-6-1999 by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla for unauthorised removal of imported cargo, unauthorised importation of electrical grade steel sheets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further stated that the duty liability of Rs. 6,81,382/- includes the duty amount of the entire goods in the two containers. The applicant admitted to deposit the amount in two instalments after receipt of the admission order. The applicant requested for release of the two containers after the first instalment so that he can make financial arrangements for the second instalment within one month. 8. The Revenue argued that in Column No. 12 of the application the applicant has mentioned the admitted duty disclosed and accepted as Rs. 6,81,382/- but this is not an additional amount. The applicant has not given any further amount or further additional disclosure. The applicant has not come to the Settlement Commission with true disclosure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement Commission with a full and true disclosure he will get immunity otherwise he is not entitled for any immunity. 10. The Commission after perusal of the application filed, the report of the Commissioner and the case records, vide Interim Order dated 21-9-2000, allowed the application to be proceeded with under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commission also allowed the request of the applicant for payment of the admitted amount by two instalments. The Commission directed that the first instalment of Rs. 4,20,000/- shall be paid within thirty days of the receipt of the order as required under sub-section (3) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,61,382/- shall be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The Advocate also stated that a separate application has also been made for the Proprietor Shri Haresh B. Teckwani. The same may also be considered for settlement. It was prayed that the case may be settled and immunity may be granted as applicable under Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. 15. The Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Kandla was represented by Shri Prashant Kaduskar, Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 16. The Revenue inter alia referred to their letter dated 9th January, 2001. It was stated that the allegation that there was no physical examination is false as samples were drawn under panchanama and calculations were done in the show cause notice on the basis of the opinion of Metallurgical Expert. It was also confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in its contention that the applicant has not only misdeclared the goods but also its value. Further, it may be fairly considered that at the time of hearing the applicant has accepted the full duty liability of Rs. 12,43,132/- even if the said amount has not been indicated in the show cause notice. The amount indicated in the show cause notice has been conceded to be not correct by the Revenue, as there appears to be a calculation mistake. 20. The Commission allows the application of M/s. Laser Recycling and Co-Noticee Mr. Haresh B. Teckwani, Proprietor of M/s. Laser Recycling for settlement for an amount of Rs. 12,43,132/- (Rupees twelve lakhs forty-three thousand and one hundred thirty-two only). Out of the said amount, an amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. _______ CORRIGENDUM The Supreme Court of India vide F.3/Ed. B.J./23/2002, dated 8-2-2002 has issued the following corrigendum in C.A. No. 6408-6410 of 1999, decided on 8-10-2001 Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Yeses International [Since reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 526 (S.C.) - Line 3 of Para 3 on Page 528 and Line 3 of Para 8 on Page 529]. Kindly correct your copy of E.L.T. accordingly. Page No. Line No. For Read 3. 11 (from top) Department Determination 7. 8 (from top) explicitely explicitly CORRIGENDUM The Supreme Court of India vide F. 3/Ed. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
