9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed upon the appellant as penalty in the impugned order. 2. The appellant imported machinery etc. valued at Rs. 1,82,33,601/-against an appropriate licence at a concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 110/95- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest had been paid in May, 2000. He directed adjustment thereof towards the charges payable. He confiscated the machinery but permitted its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the importer. Hence, the appeal. 3. Shri J.C. Patel places on record a statement showing the payments made by the importers towards duty and interest for the entire d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing from the Revenue supports Commissioner's order. He states that any failure on the part of the importer to comply with the liability undertaken by them would automatically result in the taking of corrective action in the form of imposition of fines and penalty. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. 5. We find the cited judgment of the Tribunal covers the case completely. We reprodu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with. That is not the case. It is not in dispute that Maruti Udyog Ltd. paid the amount within this period. Therefore, there in fact has been no breach in the condition of the exemption. The goods were therefore not liable to confiscation under clause (o) of Section 111 and the importer not liable to penalty. We have also taken note of another factor. There is no allegation in the notice that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
