9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls), Pune, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 19-12-2007 by the Joint Commissioner, Pune, has been dismissed. The Joint Commissioner, by his order, had demanded the customs duty to the tune of Rs. 10,59,945/- and Rs. 1,24,872/- in terms of the condition of B-17 Bond for violation of the condition of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with the interest thereon in terms of Section 28AB of the said Act read with the said Notification and has also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs in terms of Section 112 of the said Act. 2. The learned Consultant appearing for the applicants drawing our attention to the Notification No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, one has to read the words capital goods in the context of the above notification. For example, a telephone instrument may constitute capital goods where the assessee is in the business of telecommunication. However, if the assessee is in the business of manufacture of hydrogen peroxide, the same instrument cannot be construed as capital goods for the purposes of the above notification. Hence, the peculiarities of the business or the undertaking are also required to be kept in mind while interpreting the said notification. Having held so in relation to the expression in connection with the manufacture appearing in the said notification, the Apex Court further held that we find that the assessee has claimed exemption in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the expression in connection with production under the Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31-3-2003, while contending that the capital goods have been understood in the market as plant and machinery for packaging since the day the Notification No. 123/81 was issued, prima facie, the case has been made out for grant of waiver in relation to the demand pertaining to the penalty. In these circumstances, the stay application is partly allowed in relation to the penalty amount, while it is rejected in relation to the demand pertaining to the duty. 6. The order of the Tribunal in appellant s case reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 141 does not lay down any law as such, besides that it was passed in stay application and therefore, it cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
