2014 (1) TMI 1068

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. ORDER The respondent imported 36 laptops and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996. The original authority as well as the Commissioner (A) denied the benefit of the Notification on the ground that the appellant did not have any evidence of export of these items. The Commissioner (A) while upholding the stand taken by the original adjudicating authority that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and has held that respondent were able to show that these laptops which were imported by them were leased from foreign companies and had been issued to the individual employees. Because these laptops developed some fault when the employees had gone abroad they had left it with the foreign company who had leased the same and subsequently all these laptops were imported as one consignment. Accepti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty involved is less than Rs. 1 lakh and redemption fine is Rs. 2.5 lakh and penalty is Rs. 1 lakh. By no stretch of imagination, ail these figures can be considered to be more than Rs. 5 lakh. This appeal deserves to be rejected on this ground also. 5. In view of the above discussion, the stay application as well as the appeal is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
Case la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X