9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the Development Commissioner vide order dated 12.03.2010. The validity of the extension was given retrospectively. Thus, we observe that the appellant was granted time for another period of five years from 5th May, 2008 to fulfil their export obligation. Hence, the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 is premature. The ld. adjudicating authority could have waited for the final decision of the Development Commissioner, STPI, before passing the order. Since the appellant has received extension for another period of five years with retrospective effect, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. As the confiscation of the goods and the demand of duties are not sustainable, the question of imposition of redemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of STP Kolkata. 2.1 In view of the above, it appeared that the unit had not achieved export obligation cumulatively or annually. Accordingly, as per paragraph 3(d)(ii) of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003, it appeared that the appellant was liable to pay duty along with interest on the imported and domestically procured goods. 3. In view of the above, a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued to the appellant proposing as follows:- 4. The Notice was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 30.04.2010 wherein the ld. adjudicating authority has passed the following order: - "15. … (a)(i) Computer hardware and accessories, valued at Rs. 2,74,99,090,28 (Rupees two crore seventy four lakh ninety nine thousand nine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms and Central Excise duty not levied on the impugned goods. The interest will be payable for the period starting from the day when the duties became due and the date on which the payment of the demanded duty is made. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,25,00,000 (Rupees one crore twenty five lakh only) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on M/s Jayashree Infotech Consultants." 5. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellant has filed by this appeal. 6. The appellant submits that they have faced certain difficulties, technical as well as procedural, for setting up of the 100% EOUs; that there were administrative and legal problems which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Development Commissioner, STPI. However, the Ld. Commissioner went ahead and passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 without waiting for the decision of the Development Commissioner, STPI. 6.4. In view of the above, they submit that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable as the Development Commissioner has granted extension retrospectively for fulfilment of export obligation vide order dated 12.03.2010. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We observe that the appellant has obtained permission from the Development Commissioner, STPI for manufacture and export of software vide their le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
