9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the goods covered by the bill of entry were the same as those exported under the four shipping bills. - Held That:- exemption in terms of Notification No.94/96-Cus - No dispute arise about the fact that goods in question were not dutiable goods, by virtue of the exemption notification - since no duty is payable, no penalty can be imposed – Tribunal followed the express language of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002, 1.7.2002, 12.7.2002 and 24.7.2002 for the export of finished leather falling under Heading 4106.19.09 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. In respect of three out of four shipping bills, the first respondent realised the sale proceeds in foreign exchange. Therefore DEPB Credit in two scrips were obtained. 4. But before the sale proceeds under the fourth shipping bill could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the option for redemption on payment of fine. He also imposed a penalty and directed them to produce DEPB for debiting an amount of ₹ 7,06,344/-. The redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in lieu of the confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 84,19,320/- was ₹ 10,00,000/-. The penalty imposed was ₹ 5,00,000/-. The penalty was set aside by the CESTAT by an order dated 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal rightly relied upon the law laid down in paragraphs 79 and 80 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd., v. Commissioner of Customs, 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21. Since the Tribunal has followed only the express language of Section 112(a)(ii) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement, we find no merits in the appeal. Hence the appeal is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
