9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest, penalty are justified - C/182-183/2007 - 924 & 925/2007 - Dated:- 7-8-2007 - [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 2/2007 dated 31-1-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. 2.The appellants are a 100% E.O.U. working under the STP Scheme. Revenue initiated action against them on the ground that they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were imposed. The appellants strongly challenged the impugned order. 3.Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Anil Kumar learned JDR for Revenue. 4.Heard both the sides. While the learned DR reiterated the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i materia with the provisions of Notification No. 52/2003. The point which the learned Advocate urged was the said condition 15 would not be applicable as the goods were imported in the year 1999. Further we understand that the goods which were in the premises shared by the customer of the appellants had already been debonded on payment of appropriate duty. Moreover, the Adjudicating authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
