9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Pramod Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T.)]. The appellants are a company registered abroad engaged in India providing services to the Contracting Agencies like logging, perforation, stimulation, tools and testing etc. For the purpose of their services, they had to import various parts/consumable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 restricted it to the proportion of amount of duty and determination of value and appropriation of amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- deposited voluntarily towards Customs duty should be adjusted against the duty and interest proposed. Vide this notice appellants were called upon to explain why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Eight lacs thirty seven thousand thirty five only) deposited on 8-3-99 and 3-4-99 were ordered to be adjusted towards the above confirmed demand under the provision of Section 28AB. Besides the above order a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs only) under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also imposed on the appellants. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) The Duty demand, under the said notice dated 30-3-99 could only be extended to 5 years retrospectively in this case from the date of demand. As we find that there was a misdeclaration of value due beyond the period of 5 years retrospective cannot be upheld; (e) We find force in the submission of the appellants made before us to the benefit of Notification No. 86/94-Cus dated 1-3-94 as amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
