9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. The appellant company is an unit in CEPZ. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant company imported capital goods worth Rs. 50,12,426/- and cleared the same without payment of duty under notification 256/8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-3-1995 and 122/95, dated 28-11-1995 stipulate that adjudication should be proceeded with only after the Development Commissioner, CEPZ in charge of EOU has been intimated about the violation. In support, the appellant relied on Vishal Footwear Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [1999 (114) E.L.T. 60] and Kuntal Granites (P) Ltd. [Final Order No. 332/2001 dated 1-3-2001 (SZB), 2001 (132) E.L.T. 214 (T)]. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuted by an importer; that the Circular relied upon does not restrict the department to proceed to recover duty foregone; that the show cause notice clearly brings out the violation; that the Development Commissioner himself has started eviction proceedings against the appellant company and therefore is aware that the unit failed to fulfil the obligation cast upon it and that both the Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment. The Revenue is well within its competence to issue notice and proceed for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. We do not find any infirmity in the order. However, having regard to the financial condition of the appellant and the attending circumstances, we modify the orders as under. Redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. Personal penalty on the Managing Director is red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
