9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hundreds and Seventy Two only) on M/s. Royal Industries Limited, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana; tinder section 28(1) and 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Notification and the Bond; 2. I impose interest @ 20% p.a. on M/s. Royal Industries Limited, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana from the dates as specified in the preceding paragraphs till date of payment of duty in terms of condition No. 6 of the Notification and the Bond executed by the Noticee and under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, l962; 3. I confiscate the goods valued at Rs. 26,73,04,727/- under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods have already been cleared and are therefore not available/traceable, no redemption fine can be imposed for their redemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arg, resident of 64/66-A Agar Nagar, Ludhiana under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; 10. I also impose penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) on M/s. Adinaih Textiles Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; 11. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) on M/s. Jai Bhawani Cargo Carriers, Plot No. 63, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana under 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; and 12. I also impose penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) on Sh Ramesh Kumar Jain, Partner, M/s. Jai Bhawani Cargo Carriers under 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 3. The petitioners preferred appeals. The petitioners also applied for waiver of deposit of the amount as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there may be no discussion about financial hardship pleaded by the petitioners, the petitioners were not entitled to waiver of condition of pre-deposit. It was also submitted that in case, order of the Tribunal is to be set aside on account of non-consideration of submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, the order of remand was also liable to be set aside, particularly when finding recorded for remand that the petitioners had not been given opportunity of hearing, was contradicted by the finding recorded in the earlier part of the order that several opportunities were given to the petitioners but the petitioners could not furnish the explanation. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty and applicants are claiming benefit of notification No. 2/95-C.E. the applicant also claimed that they had purchased the raw material locally which attracts less duty these facts requires verification by the adjudicating authority. The claim of the applicant under notification No. 2/95 has not been considered by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. In these circumstances, we find that these are fit cases for reconsideration for these purposes and for cross examination of witness. In these circumstances, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority after setting aside the impugned orders for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and on showing the deposit of the above m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
