2013 (12) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom imposing penalties - Held that:- For a penalty to be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act, the person sought to be penalized should be shown to have committed any one or more of the violations specified under Section 111 of the Act, which has not been done in the present cases. The appellant has not shown that the respondents rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same without payment of duty under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.3.2003. Some of the warehoused capital goods became obsolete and hence not fit for use for the purpose of development and export of software. Other warehoused capital goods outlived their initial bonding periods but the respondents failed to seek extension of warehousing period in respect of such goods under Section 61 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies on the respondents. 4. The appellant prays for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalties on the respondents under Section 112(a) of the Act. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) has reiterated the grounds of these appeals. 6. After considering his submissions, we have not found any valid reason to impose the proposed penalties on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X