9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order]. M/s. Harrods Garments have filed this appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. RS/25-26/SRT-II/07 dated 29-1-2007 confirming penalty of Rs. 7,04,101/- under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. During the visit, officers of the Department have found shortage of 20,248 Sq.Mts. of 100% Polyester fabrics. The partner of the unit admitted that he had sold the fabrics without payi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 28 of Customs Act and the Adjudicating Authority has no power to do so. 4. Ld. DR argued that the penalty imposed need not be reduced in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Bageswari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2008 (222) E.L.T. 204 (Bombay)] wherein it has been held that unless duty, interest and 25% of the duty as penalty have been deposited with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority and the appellate authority as far as operations as 100% EOU are concerned. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1048 (Tri.-Chennai)] cited by the Advocate clearly states that for post-import violation of conditions of EOU, Commissioner-in-charge of the EOU would have jurisdiction. Coming to the next argument that the demand could not ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
