9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assisted by Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate argued the case on behalf of the applicant. Shri Mahadeo S. Londhe was also present. The Revenue was represented by Shri Birender Singh, Appraising Officer from the office of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Shri K.R. Chaudhari, Advocate, M.N. Tonape, FTDO and S.P. Sahare, UDC represented the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai. 2. The applicant is a manufacturer of optical fibre cables used as input in the manufacture of telecom cables. The applicant obtained an EPCG Licence No. 01500529, dated 3-10-1996 from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), New Delhi for the import of capital goods at concessional rate of duty of 15% under Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how Cause Notice vide F.NO. 01/36/21/069/AM97/ EPCG-II, dated 7-3-2005 was issued to the applicant by the DGFT, New Delhi proposing penal action under the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 6. In the meantime the Revenue recovered Rs. 91,50,000/- by way of encashment of Bank Gurantees furnished by the applicant at the time of clearance of the goods. 7. The applicant filed application for settlement before the Commission on 20-7-2005 under Section 127B of the Act for settlement of the case covered by the aforesaid two Show Cause Notices accepting additional duty liability of Rs. 1,16,13,429/-. 8. The ld. Advocate representing the applicant submitted that there was a mistake in Column No. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the applicant and the Revenue. The Revenue have raised the objection for admission of the case on the ground that there is no additional disclosure made by the applicant. We observe that this issue has been dealt with at length by this Bench in the case of M/s. Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd., reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 495 (Sett. Comm.) wherein it was held that such cases were within the purview of the Commission and were entertainable under Sections 127A and 127B of the Act. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in their order in the case of M/s. Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 499 (Guj.) has categorically held that such case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
