9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962 if appellant is made to pay import duty. That the entire exercise is revenue neutral - Held that: - By issuing show cause notice dt 29/9/2010 Revenue has taken steps to finalize the provisional assessment by demanding duty. As such demand is not time barred & has been correctly confirmed along with interest. On the issue of confiscation and imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Strand Road, Kolkata as first appellate authority. Under this OIA dt 29/01/2014 first appellate authority reduced redemption fine to ₹ 1, 50,000/- penalty to ₹ 50,000/- but upheld duty demand of ₹ 3, 55, 688/-, with interest, decided by the Adjudicating authority under OIO dt 4/9/2012. 2. Sh. S. P. Siddhanta (Consultant) appearing for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt condition of the exemption notification. That demand cannot be time barred as PD bond was executed at the time of import. That redemption fine penalties have been correctly imposed as appellant has violated the conditions of exemption notification as per Sec 111 (O) of the Customs Act 1962. 4. Heard both sides perused the case records. The first issue involved in these proceedings is whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest and will not attract confiscation or imposition of penalty upon the appellant. According. Redemption fine imposed penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside. 5. Appellant also contended that if they are made to pay duty then they would be eligible to Drawback under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962. This aspect can be taken up by the appellant with the appropriate Customs duty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
