9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter remanded to consider rate of interest, penalty and fine - C/363/2006 - C/114/2009(PB), - Dated:- 26-3-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral) (for the Bench)].- Heard. This appeal arises against the order dated 28-12-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. 2. By the impugned order the Commissioner had directed confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 3. Brief facts, relevant in this case, are that the appellants sought to import goods worth Rs. 10,89,73,604.15p. pursuant to licence ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 28-12-05. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that it was due to financial constraints that the appellant could not satisfy the condition regarding import of capital goods up to Rs. 20 Crores. 5. The learned DR submitted that mere financial constraints cannot be a justification for exemption from the condition as the said condition was in accordance with the scheme under which the benefit of licence was obtained by the appellant. 6. The fact that the appellant had failed to import the capital goods beyond the value of Rs. 10,89,73,604.l5p. is not in dispute. That being admitted and clearly established fact, it was necessary for the appellant to establish that in spite of the said failure, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the records as pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant clearly disclose that the appellant had made all the necessary efforts to comply with the obligation regarding the export of the goods consequent to imports made under the said licence and it is also contended that the reports revealed that the export obligation record with respect to the goods manufactured by the appellant was very good for the relevant period. However, this aspect was not at all considered by the adjudicating authority. 10. Perusal of the impugned order indeed discloses that the adjudicating authority had not taken pains to consider the mitigating factors while imposing penalty as well while quantifying the rate of interest. Though the notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
