9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Towers and Tower accessories. M/s. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APTRANSCO) placed order on the appellants for supply of Towers and Tower accessories for Simhadri and Vizag Transmission System Project financed by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). The appellants have claimed exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,77,277/- imposed on the first appellants, penalties of Rs. 2,00,000/- each imposed on the second and third appellants, and demand of interest against delayed payment of duty. 2.The learned Counsel for the appellants argues that since the duty has already been paid prior to the issue of show cause notice, no penalty is imposable on the appellants. He also contends that for the same reason, no int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the arguments advanced from both sides. We are of the view that since the impugned goods were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. only on the basis of a certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh treating the fund provider JBIC as an authorized international agency, the duty becomes payable under the Notification when subsequently such ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed by the adjudicating Commissioner, we are of the view that in the circumstances of this case where the exemption was availed on the basis of a certificate issued by a State Government authority, the imposition of penalty is not justified. We also note in this context that the appellants have been reimbursed the duty amount by way of cash refund from DGFT as terminal excise duty on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
