9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri B. Balamurugan, JC (AR) ORDER Per: Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Mobile Phones, Parts of Mobile Phones and Networking equipments. They executed four B-17 bonds for a total value of Rs. 12.08 crores under the 100% E.O.U. scheme before Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Poonamallee Division and furnished necessary Bank Guarantees for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be available for the inputs used in the manufacture of goods sold in the DTA if the finished goods are non-excisable or leviable to "nil" rate of duty under Customs Tariff Act and "nil" additional duty leviable under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act read with exemption notification. Similarly, the first proviso to para 3 of the Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 01.03.2003 states that no exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. 2. After due process of law, the adjudicating Commissioner confirmed the Customs duty demand of Rs. 19,61,997/- and Central Excise Duty demand of along with interest thereon. The original authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty as well as interest already paid by the appellants was appropriated. Hence this appeal. 3. At the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order. 5. The appellant is contesting only the penalties imposed. It is indeed a fact that during the disputed period, the maximum penalty that could be imposed under section was only Rs. 10,000/-. Only with effect from 18.05.2008, the penalty under this provision was increased to Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the adjudicating Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
