2012 (4) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the respondent.   ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)   1) Heard Mr. Jetly, learned counsel for the revenue and Mr. Umesh R. Phalorh, Chief Financial Officer of the respondent in person. 2) This appeal was admitted on 18/10/2006 on the following questions of law :- (a) Whether the CESTAT was correct in law in holding that the customs duty demanded along with interest on raw mat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mand was confirmed in terms of Notification Nos.123/81-CE dated 2/6/1981, 57/94-Cus dated 1/3/1994, the Condition No.(d) of Notification No.1/95-CE dated 1/4/1995 ? (c) Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the demand is not upheld and no liability under Section 111 for confiscation has been arrived when, the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... firmed and penalty was also imposed. 4) Challenging the order in original dated 17/2/2004, the assessee filed an appeal and the Tribunal by its impugned order dated 27/5/2005 set aside the order in original on the ground that without granting the option of re-warehousing or re-exporting the unutilised raw materials, the demand for duty and interest cannot be upheld. The Tribunal further held that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X