9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. - Heard both the sides and perused the records. 2. The application for stay is filed by the applicant against the Order-in- Original No. 44/CUS/2006 dated 31-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad confirming demand of differential customs duty of Rs. 30,89,87,685/- under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Use in Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, imposing penalty of Rs. 30,89,87,685/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in respect of show cause notice dated 6-3-2006), confirming demand of differential customs duty of Rs. 3,92,359/- under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared optical fibre in Domestic Tariff Area without permission from SEEPZ. They have cleared these goods on the invoices of the applicant (E-2 plant) showing in re cords as if the goods in question were produced by the applicant. The said matter was decided by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 19-20/EX- CUS/2003 dated 11-7-2003 wherein it was established that some of the production of the applicant was actually done in their adjacent 100% EOU and it was shown as if the same were manufactured in the applicant's factory and accordingly the records were fabricated. 5. The Order-in-Original No. 19-20/EX-CUS/2003 dated 11-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner in the case of the 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) has subsumed in the Order of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal rate of duty and are liable to pay the differential customs duty of Rs. 30,99,24,288/- on the input not utilized in the factory of production and removed surreptitiously to 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) during the period from 1-4-2001 to 6-8-2003. After following the necessary adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 31-12-2006 as referred to in para 2 above. 7. It is the contention of the applicant that this case is linked and inter connected to the case, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case, and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recoveries of the duty and penalties, in all fairness, sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
