9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate & Shri T.Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. K. Das, Spl. Counsel ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra. 1. These three Applications are filed seeking waiver of penalty of Rs. 3.00 Crores, Rs. 6.00 Crores and Rs. 8.00 Crores under Section 114(i) & (ii) and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Bharat Moradia, Proprietor of M/s.Bharat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Applicants later obtained the licenses from DGFT on the basis of the said exports. The Revenue disputed the export quantity and eligibility of the benefit, on the basis of the said exported quantity. It is the contention of the Ld.Advocate for the Appellant that the DGFT even though issued a letter dated 12.12.2006 on the possible mis-declaration and wrong availment of benefit of the DFIA Schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate further submitted that the original license has been deposited in all the cases with the Customs department, Kolkata and the benefit accrued out of the disputed quantity exported had not yet been availed by them. Therefore, at this stage, violation of the provisions as observed by the Ld.Commissioner in the impugned order is premature and not sustainable. 3. Shri A.K.Das, Ld.Special Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been exported by the Applicants are incorrect. Hence, the benefit under DFIA Scheme cannot flow from the said exports. Whereas, the contention of the Applicants on the other hand is that the licensing authority, namely Directorate General of Foreign Trade has even though initially through their letter dated 12.12.2006 disputed the fact of export of the said goods, but later on scrutiny and verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
