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

..... Per: P. G. Chacko Both the appeals are by the department. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor there is any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. As the facts of the cases are similar, we take up the appeals to be disposed of by a common order. 3. The respondents are STP units working under 100% EOU scheme and both were holding bonded warehouse licences during the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lso proposed to confiscate the goods under Section 111 (o) of the Act. Before these proposals could crystallize into action, the respondents paid duty with interest in respect of the warehoused capital goods which outlived bonding period. After noting these payments, the Commissioner of Customs passed orders appropriating the said payments towards demands of customs duty against the respondents an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n that the respondents rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. Therefore the prayer in the appeals cannot be acceded to. We have also considered the decisions cited in the Memoranda of Appeals and have found the facts of those cases to be distinguishable from the facts of the instant cases. 7. In the result, both the appeals get dismissed. (Operative portion 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