2001 (11) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant. Shri J.M. George, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on the applicant of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the applicant under Clauses (a) and (o) of Section 111 of the Act and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. 2. So far as the first penalty is concerned, the Commissioner has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Section 111. So far as Clause (o) is concerned, the Commissioner s order does not appear to advance any argument. It is also significant that the Commissioner proposed to demand duty on the goods that the applicant imported on the ground that the benefit of exemption had been wrongly extended. It is difficult to see how penalty could be ordered under Clause (o). 3. We do not find it possible .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X