2009 (4) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J.]. -  The first respondent is a cargo routing agent, which carried shipment sent by one M/s. Leela Scottish Lace Limited. The goods were ready-made garments manufactured on 100% EOU basis. Some irregularities were found in the duty drawback claimed by them. Therefore a case was registered against M/s. Leela Scottish Lace Limited. A show cause notice was also issued to the first respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st also stand absolved and therefore the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Against this the present appeal has been filed. 2. This court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial question of law :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty under Section 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and for which penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act is not called for and thereafter the order of recovery of drawback was held to be wrong as also the imposition of penalty. The entire order was set aside. The Division Bench of this Court in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 358 (Mad.) (Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. L.T. Karle & Co.) has referred to 2003 (156) E.L.T. 548 Leela Scottish Ltd. v. Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X