9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of 70 to 100%, when the demand of undue benefits of draw-back alongwith the interest has already been confirmed for recovery by the impugned order. The Revenue has cited certain case-laws but in no case law the penalty imposed by the lower Revenue Authorities has been enhanced by the Appellate Authority. Further, we do not find enough reasons to enhance the penalties which have been imposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s. A s Raj International respectively. They further interalia pleaded that this is the case where drawback amounting to ₹ 1,00,05,250/- and ₹ 67,56,033/- had been fraudulently availed and quantum of penalties imposed by the lower authority is not enough, in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the appellants and their proprietorship firms. They pleaded that penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides alongwith the case laws cited. 5. The Revenue has been saying that the appellants made forgery and fraudulently made over-valued exports in order to claim ineligible drawback of huge amounts as well as undue huge DEPB benefits. The impugned order mentions that the appellants proprietary firms -M/s.G S In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission says that penalty should have been in the range of 70% to 100% of the undue benefits of drawback claimed by the appellants. However, the Revenue has failed to give substantial reasoning that why this penalty has to be enhanced to the range of 70 to 100%, when the demand of undue benefits of draw-back alongwith the interest has already been confirmed for recovery by the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
