9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the official concerned under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The main allegation was that the company had violated the provisions of the Act in as much as they had diverted the imported plastic sheets, flower foams etc. The company filed an application for settlement with this Bench admitting a duty of Rs. 10,00,000/- initially. Thereafter, after several hearings and as per orders of the Bench, the Applicant company and the officials of the department sat together and reconciled the differences in duty. Revenue thereafter admitted certain mistakes in the calculation and reduced the duty amount by Rs. 5,08,783/- and the remaining duty was Rs. 91,23,063/-. Before the case was finally heard for admission, the applicant had paid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative on the other hand vehemently pleaded that given the conduct of the applicant and their dilatory tactics they should not be given any immunity. In a small note given at the time of hearing, he pleaded that there were three hearing before the Commission, and three interim orders and the duty was also paid in three instalments after the issue of the admission orders. The duty demand was settled two years after the issue of the SCN and this was the longest pending case before the Commission. He added that the gravity of the offence cannot be attributed to ignorance of law, and the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd., 2002 (144) E.L.T. 233 (Sett. Comm.) is applicable in this case also. 4. The Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. Such misdemeanour cannot be absolved by grant of total immunity. Hence the main applicant has to pay the interest with effect from 28-9-96 when Section 28AB was inserted in the Customs Act, 1962 by Section 62 of the Finance (No. 3) Act, 1996. 6. The facts in this case are similar. Further the duty was payable during the period when the diversions had taken place in violation of the conditions of the exemption notification. As such the Bench is of the opinion that full immunity cannot be granted to the applicant and they have to pay interest on the delayed payment of duty. However, the Bench notes that the applicant has co-operated with the Commission and paid the duties as ordered. As such, they deserve immunities on other counts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
