9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No.22 / 2008-Adjn-Cus, dated 29.12.2008 imposing penalty of ₹ 10.00 lakhs under Section 114 of the Customs Act, filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that the company, in which the respondent is a Director, itself had not violated any of the provisions of the Customs Act and in particular had not misutilized the DEPB scrips and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... okhale, Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise For the Respondent : Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran JUDGMENT (Per Honble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) This Central Excise Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is filed at the instance of the Department against the Order dated 19.03.2012 in Appeal No.E/C/ST/266/2009 corresponding to Final Order No. 243 / 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of framing the DEPB Scheme would be defeated. In the light of the above judgments, whether Honble CESTAT, Bangalore is correct in setting aside the Commissioners Order-in-Original No.22/2008-Adjn-Cus dated 29.12.2008 on the grounds that Customs authorities cannot unilaterally alter the amount of DEPB benefit given by the DGFT authorities based on the export documents relating to exports already m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thereby exonerated itself from the levy. Inasmuch as the company itself was exonerated the penalty imposed on the respondent was also set aside. The substantial questions of law said to have been arising from the orders of the Tribunal only relate to the company and no question of law as to why the order of exoneration of penalty passed in favour of the respondent needs to be interfered with, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
