9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent JUDGEMENT Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby a demand of duty of Rs. 76,63,366/- is confirmed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a demand of Rs. 44,57,377/- is confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the adjudicating authority also imposed penalties equal to the amount of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t payment of duty at the time of debonding and show cause notice was issued demanding duty of approximately Rs. 6 crores. The adjudicating authority dropped a portion of the demand after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the appellant, however, confirmed part of the duty as the appellant had not paid the appropriate duty on six capital goods at the time of debonding. The duties we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied upon the findings of the lower authority and submitted that the appellant had not given the complete list of capital goods which were procured without payment of duty and the items include a generating set. It cannot be said that the omission of these items from the list submitted at the time of debonding is not deliberate. It is only during the audit the conduct of the appellant came to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts etc., which cannot escape the notice of the appellant. Further, as the appellants were maintaining proper records regarding the capital goods received without payment of duties from which the Revenue found out the deficiency, therefore we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that omission of the capital goods such as generating sets etc. is not deliberate. In view of this, we find n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
