9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice there is no proposal for confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act. The proposal was for imposing penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. Under Section 114A of the Customs Act, mens rea is to be proved, which has not been proved by Revenue, appeal is disposed of by modification of the Order-in-Original - E/3846/2003-Mum - A/562/2011-WZB/C-II(EB), - Dated:- 14-6-2011 - S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Mathew John, JJ. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for the Appellant. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. When the case was called, nobody was present for the respondents. The Revenue, the appellant, was represented by Shri Manish Mohan, SDR. Since the matter relates to the year 2003, we have gone through the appeal paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coordination with High Court of Bombay. 3. On receipt of this letter, a show-cause notice was issued proposing demand of customs duty of Rs. 55,05,671/- and excise duty of Rs. 3,53,478.81 as per the conditions of the Notifications under which exemptions were originally granted. Recovery of interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 11AA/AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposition of penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules/Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 were also proposed. 4. On adjudication of the show-cause notice, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the duty demanded along with appropriate interest. However, in the matter of penalty, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 822 (Tri-Del) and SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 293 (Tri-Kol) in this regard. 6. Considered the arguments for the Revenue and perused the case records. 7. We are not impressed by the argument that the respondent set up this 100% EOU with intention to evade customs and excise duty. The benefit that would have accrued to them by way of the exemption would in the normal course be much smaller than the loss that would be are caused to them when the assets are taken over by the Banks. Therefore, the argument that the entire activities were contrived to evade customs and excise duties is prima facie not acceptable and no evidence to prove the contrary has been submitted by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
