TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal and the stay application have arisen out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 691(Drawback/2012) JNCH/EXP-Mumbai II, dated 22-11-2012. 2. The appellant M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. filed shipping Bill No. 8111637, dated 21-3-2012 for export of goods giving declaration as Turbo Generators - partial shipment consisting of Gearboxes unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity; however, the fine was reduced from ₹ 1.50 lakhs to ₹ 1.25 lakhs and penalty from ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 75,000/-; but for the above modification, the order of the lower appellate authority was upheld. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the provisions of Section 113(i) and (ii) of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submits that the question of imposition of penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation thereof, etc., would not arise at all. He also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) wherein it was held that if the exemption was claimed on the belief that laying claim to some exemption that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verify the claim of the appellant and determine the quantum of drawback the appellant is eligible for. In the case of Northern Plastic Ltd., the Apex Court held that if the appellant being importer claimed duty exemption on the bona fide belief that he is eligible for exemption, it cannot be said to be a misdeclaration as contemplated by Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 so long as the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
