9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has intentionally mis-declared the facts and have claimed the excess drawback, the goods in question are liable for confiscation under Section 113 (h)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. As the same are not physically available, having been exported, the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 114. Appellants are regular exporter their product in question and were aware of the legal pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), J. For the Petitioner : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, A.R. ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa : After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is a unit engaged in the production of export of Glass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extent of ₹ 11,56,277/- was not available to them. The appellant paid back the drawback so received by them in violation of the provisions, along with payment of interest. 2. In above background, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for imposition of penalty resulting in passing of the present impugned order by Commissioner vide which penalty of ₹ 3 lakhs stands impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat though the availment of Cenvat credit mis-declaration in the ARE-I was there but the same was not on account of any mala fide so as to invoke the penal provision against them. On the other hand, Revenues contention is that the appellant is a regular exporter of goods and was well aware of the fact that if the exports are being made under drawback claim, they are not entitled to the Cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
