|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 525 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 501
Issues: Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, liability of duty on purchaser of goods, pending High Court writ petition.
1. Stay Application for Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The case involved a stay application for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 52,34,312/- and penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with a stay of recovery proceedings. The Counsel argued that duty was demanded from the Financial Corporation without involving the loanee in the proceedings properly. The Counsel contended that the party, being the purchaser of the goods, should not be liable to pay duty. The Department, however, argued that the loanee was made a party to the proceedings, and hence, the duty was determined against the loanee and demanded from the Financial Corporation. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and referred to relevant case laws to make a decision.
2. Liability of Duty on Purchaser of Goods:
The Counsel cited a decision of the High Court stating that duty liability cannot be imposed on the purchaser of the goods. The Department, on the other hand, argued that the duty was rightfully demanded from the Financial Corporation as they had taken possession of the goods in a Customs Bonded Warehouse and sold them to a third party without de-bonding. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both sides and referred to previous legal precedents to reach a conclusion.
3. Pending High Court Writ Petition:
It was brought to the attention of the Tribunal that the Excise Department had filed a writ petition against the Financial Corporation before the High Court, which was pending. The outcome of this writ petition was expected to shed light on the ongoing dispute before the Tribunal. After careful consideration of the facts, circumstances, and relevant case laws, the Tribunal decided to grant the stay as requested, especially due to the pending issue before the High Court in the writ petition filed by the Department against the Financial Corporation. The matter was scheduled for further orders to monitor the developments in the High Court with reference to the writ petition.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the stay application for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, the liability of duty on the purchaser of goods, and the impact of the pending High Court writ petition on the ongoing dispute. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, referred to relevant legal precedents, and decided to grant the stay application in light of the pending issue before the High Court.
-
2002 (8) TMI 500
The appeal challenged the dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of a speaking order on classification change. Appellant's plea for remand was accepted by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai, setting aside the dismissal and remanding the matter for a speaking order on classification after due hearing. The appeal was allowed by remand.
-
2002 (8) TMI 499
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal where Modvat credit was denied on items like Thermo Tracer, Regent-A, Reference Oil, and Dry Asbestos as they did not fall under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal was rejected.
-
2002 (8) TMI 498
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi heard an appeal regarding the confiscation of unaccounted goods in a factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the confiscation, but the Tribunal restored it based on a Bombay High Court decision. The redemption fine was upheld, but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 7,000. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 497
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant for waiver of duty on polyvinyl chloride pipes. The pipes were considered as parts of sprinklers and irrigation systems, classified under Heading 84.24. The Tribunal noted that the pipes were intended for use as component parts of irrigation systems and were supplied as such. Deposit of duty of Rs. 9.04 lakhs was waived and its recovery stayed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 494
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Customs Notification No. 204/84-Cus. and Notification No. 205/84-Cus.
2. Proof of foreign origin and liability of confiscation of goods supplied by indigenous suppliers.
3. Confiscation liability of goods supplied by M/s. Lakshmi Watches Pvt. Ltd.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination.
5. Legality of confiscation of 4895 watches under Section 120 of the Customs Act.
6. Jurisdiction of the Collector to pass the order.
7. Sustainability of the penalty imposed on HMT.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Customs Notification No. 204/84-Cus. and Notification No. 205/84-Cus.:
The Collector concluded that the term "Watch movements" in the notifications includes all stages of assembly, including completely disassembled components. However, the Tribunal found this interpretation erroneous, emphasizing that "watch movements" should not include completely disassembled parts. The Tribunal relied on the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certificate, which indicated that the goods were components of watch movements and not complete movements, thus not covered by the notifications.
2. Proof of foreign origin and liability of confiscation of goods supplied by indigenous suppliers:
The Tribunal noted that the department failed to prove the foreign origin of the goods supplied by R.R. Corporation and Vespa Trading Co. The lack of labels or markings indicating foreign origin and the absence of critical parts like the winding stem led to the conclusion that these were watch parts, not movements. The burden of proof under Sections 11B and 123 of the Customs Act was not discharged by the department, thus the goods were not liable for confiscation.
3. Confiscation liability of goods supplied by M/s. Lakshmi Watches Pvt. Ltd.:
The goods supplied by M/s. Lakshmi Watches were cleared under Notification No. 43/85-Cus., which exempts components of wristwatches but not CKD packs. The Tribunal found that the goods were components, not CKD packs, and thus not liable for confiscation under Section 111(o). The duty demand on M/s. Lakshmi Watches nullified the exemption, removing the basis for confiscation.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination:
The Tribunal observed that the denial of cross-examination of key witnesses like Mr. Sunil Kothari and Mr. Vaman Gupta violated the principles of natural justice. This denial weakened the department's case as it did not allow HMT to challenge the evidence against them effectively.
5. Legality of confiscation of 4895 watches under Section 120 of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal found no justification for the confiscation of 4895 watches under Section 120, as the goods were not proven to be smuggled. The department's failure to establish the foreign origin of the components used in these watches invalidated the confiscation order.
6. Jurisdiction of the Collector to pass the order:
The Tribunal did not find it necessary to delve into the jurisdictional issue of the Collector signing the order after his transfer, as the primary findings already invalidated the confiscation and penalties imposed.
7. Sustainability of the penalty imposed on HMT:
Given that the confiscation orders were set aside, the penalties imposed on HMT were also deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the department failed to prove its case, and thus, no penalties could be justified.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties imposed on HMT. The Tribunal found that the department did not discharge its burden of proof regarding the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the goods, and the principles of natural justice were violated.
-
2002 (8) TMI 493
The appeal was against the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The jurisdictional Commissioner allowed Modvat credit but imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that once the show cause notice was withdrawn, no penalty could be imposed. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 491
Issues:
Rectification of mistakes under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act regarding the imposition of personal penalty on directors of a Private Company without specific allegations or findings against them.
Analysis:
The case involved eight applications seeking rectification of mistakes under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act related to an order dated 29-4-97. The main issue raised was whether personal penalties could be imposed on directors of a Private Company without specific allegations or findings against them. The counsel for the applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in holding the directors liable for penalties, especially since there were no specific allegations or findings against them in the show-cause notice or adjudication orders. The counsel highlighted that the provision for proceedings against directors was introduced in the Central Excise Act in 1985, while the alleged acts occurred in 1982-83, questioning the legality of imposing penalties retroactively.
The counsel contended that without specific findings regarding the directors' personal involvement, there was no justification for imposing penalties. He referenced previous decisions to support his argument and emphasized that the penalty provision for directors came into effect after the alleged offenses. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the applications, stating that the Tribunal's decision was based on corroborative evidence and not on apparent mistakes. The DR argued that the reduction in penalties was justified based on the gravity of the offense and that the Tribunal's conclusion did not warrant rectification.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found no apparent mistakes in the order that required rectification. It emphasized that the power to rectify mistakes under Section 35(C) of the Central Excise and Salt Act was limited in scope and did not extend to reviewing earlier orders. The Tribunal clarified that errors of judgment or debatable legal points did not constitute apparent mistakes. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that an error to be apparent must be clear and unambiguous, not requiring a lengthy process of reasoning. The Tribunal rejected the applications, stating that the requests for rectification were essentially attempts to review the order, a power not vested in the Tribunal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected all eight applications for rectification, maintaining that no apparent mistakes existed in the order regarding the imposition of penalties on directors of a Private Company. The decision underscored the limited scope of rectification powers and the distinction between errors of judgment and clear, unambiguous mistakes that warrant rectification.
-
2002 (8) TMI 489
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) decision to grant Modvat credit for chemicals, fertilizers, etc., used in a tea garden for tea plant maintenance. The Tribunal found that these inputs are not directly related to the manufacturing of tea and overturned the Commissioner's decision based on a previous Tribunal ruling.
-
2002 (8) TMI 487
Issues:
Whether scrap arising out of broken moulds is dutiable or not.
Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the dutiability of scrap arising from broken moulds used in the manufacture of steel products. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing steel products, used copper moulds for casting steel, which involved the use of copper plates subjected to processes like turning and boring. The central issue revolved around whether the scrap resulting from broken moulds was subject to duty.
The appellant's representative argued that previous Tribunal decisions, such as Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and ACC Limited v. CCE, supported their position that scrap arising from dismantling condemned old machinery was not dutiable. Specifically, reference was made to the decision in ACC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, highlighting relevant portions that emphasized the non-dutiable nature of certain scrap. The appellant contended that the duty demand on scrap from broken moulds was legally untenable.
In contrast, the Revenue representative justified the duty demand by pointing out that the appellant had taken Modvat credit on copper plates used in manufacturing the moulds. However, the appellant argued that since the copper plates were no longer in existence and had been used in the manufacturing process, attributing the duty on scrap from broken moulds to the dismantling of moulds was not justified.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides and a thorough review of the submissions and records, the Tribunal concluded that the scrap arising from broken moulds was not dutiable. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by previous decisions, such as Diesel Component Works, Patiala v. CCE, Chandigarh, which established that scrap resulting from the dismantling of machinery was not subject to duty. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, disposing of the appeal in their favor based on the non-dutiable nature of the scrap from broken moulds.
-
2002 (8) TMI 485
Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on duty paid by the manufacturer on inputs used by job workers.
2. Applicability of exemption under Notf. No. 214/86-C.E. for availing Cenvat credit.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in relation to job workers.
4. Pre-deposit requirement in the context of Cenvat credit disallowance.
Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat credit on duty paid by the manufacturer on inputs used by job workers:
The appellants purchased nylon filament yarn and sent it to job workers for manufacturing knitted fabrics, which were further used to manufacture laminated fabrics. They availed Cenvat credit on the duty paid by the yarn supplier. However, a show cause notice alleged that since the job workers did not avail the exemption under Notf. No. 214/86-C.E., the Cenvat credit under Rule 57AB(1) was not admissible. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit, leading to an appeal that was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Issue 2: Applicability of exemption under Notf. No. 214/86-C.E. for availing Cenvat credit:
The appellants argued that the job workers were not required to avail the exemption under Notf. No. 214/86-C.E., as they were already exempt under Notf. No. 6/2000-C.E. The appellants relied on a Tribunal decision and a Board's instruction to support their claim. However, the Revenue relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of following pre-conditions for exemption entitlement. The Tribunal held that the job workers not availing the required exemption precluded the appellants from claiming Cenvat credit under Rule 57AB(1).
Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 57AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in relation to job workers:
The Tribunal analyzed various legal precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, to establish that adherence to essential pre-conditions, such as availing specified exemptions, was crucial for claiming benefits under Rule 57AB(1). The Tribunal emphasized that failure to meet such pre-conditions rendered the facility under the provisions unavailable to the claimant, as highlighted in the cited legal authorities.
Issue 4: Pre-deposit requirement in the context of Cenvat credit disallowance:
Considering the legal position established by the Supreme Court judgments and the lack of a prima facie case in favor of the appellants, the Tribunal directed them to make a pre-deposit of the disallowed Cenvat credit amount. The appellants were instructed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement by a specified date, failing which the matter would be revisited for compliance verification.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues surrounding the admissibility of Cenvat credit, the significance of complying with specified exemptions, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the pre-deposit requirement in the context of Cenvat credit disallowance.
-
2002 (8) TMI 484
The dispute involved eligibility of "Precicon Controller for HVR" and "Escort JCB 3DS Front end Loader" as Modvat capital goods. Appellant withdrew appeal for "Escort JCB" and reversed credit. "Precicon Controller" not specified under rule 57Q, credit not available. Penalty set aside due to genuine belief in eligibility, appeal otherwise rejected.
-
2002 (8) TMI 483
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order regarding Modvat credit on a gas purifier system. The appellant argued that the system consisted of puracarb media and purafil. The adjudicating authority held that these items did not qualify as capital goods for credit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to lack of evidence to rebut lower authorities' findings.
-
2002 (8) TMI 482
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Central Excise's order regarding Modvat credit. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, leading to disallowance of credit and imposition of penalty. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage due to lack of merit.
-
2002 (8) TMI 481
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed Nestle India Ltd.'s application for waiver of duty and penalties imposed for labelling imported chocolate. The Tribunal considered Trade Notice No. 47/96 and a previous decision stating that labelling does not amount to manufacture. As a result, the duty and penalties were waived and their recovery stayed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 480
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai waived deposit of duty and penalty for refining and deodorising crude pig fat, classifying it under Heading 05.01 instead of 15.01, with duty being nil. The process undertaken by the applicant was considered manufacturing.
-
2002 (8) TMI 478
Issues Involved:
1. Availability of small scale exemption to goods manufactured by the appellant.
2. Whether the goods manufactured were branded goods.
3. Applicability of Board's Circular No. 71/71/94-CX.
4. Relevance of the decisions in Prakash Industries and SA Industries cases.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Availability of Small Scale Exemption:
The primary issue was whether the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93, and subsequent notifications, was available to the appellant for the goods they manufactured. The appellant argued that they manufactured MDF Cable assembly for M/s. Fujitsu India Telecom Ltd. according to their technical specifications and that the cable assembly was used as original equipment in the manufacture of Digital Switching System by Fujitsu India. The appellant contended that they did not affix any trade mark or brand name on the cable assembly and used connectors bearing the "FUJITSU" mark supplied by Fujitsu India.
2. Whether the Goods Manufactured were Branded Goods:
The Commissioner denied the small scale exemption benefit on the grounds that the goods were branded, as they bore the "FUJITSU" mark on the connectors. The appellant countered that "FUJITSU" was not a brand name or trade mark but a house mark of Fujitsu India, and the cable assembly was not sold under the brand name "Fujitsu" but under the brand name "FEEX - 150."
3. Applicability of Board's Circular No. 71/71/94-CX:
The appellant referred to the Board's Circular dated 27-10-94, which provided that the brand name provisions would not apply if there was no trade of such goods and if the goods were sold to industrial consumers for use as original equipment. The appellant argued that the cable assembly was sold to Fujitsu India for further use and not traded in the market, thus qualifying for the small scale exemption.
4. Relevance of the Decisions in Prakash Industries and SA Industries Cases:
The appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in Prakash Industries, which held that branded goods supplied to customers and not traded in the market would not be denied small scale exemption. Similarly, in SA Industries, it was held that the use of a brand name was not in the course of trade if the branded goods were supplied to the owner of the brand name who did not trade them in the market. The Tribunal found that these decisions were applicable to the present case, as the goods were not traded in the market but supplied to Fujitsu India for their own use.
5. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no suppression or mis-statement on their part. They regularly submitted gate passes/invoices and RT 12 returns to the Department, and the fact of supply to Fujitsu India was well within the Department's knowledge.
6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act:
The appellant contended that the penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed as there was no suppression or mis-statement of fact. They also argued that Section 11AC came into force on 28-9-96 without retrospective effect, and penalties could not be imposed for transactions before this date. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipment Ltd. and the Larger Bench decision in Gomti Carbon Dioxide v. CCE, Kanpur.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods manufactured by the appellant did not bear the brand name as defined in Explanation IX to the Notification, and thus, the benefit of the small scale exemption could not be denied. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits without addressing the issue of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal also found that the Board's Circular dated 27-10-94 and the decisions in Prakash Industries and SA Industries were applicable, supporting the appellant's claim for small scale exemption.
-
2002 (8) TMI 477
Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit on inputs not used in manufacturing LPG Cylinders.
2. Imposition of duty and penalty by the Additional Commissioner.
3. Upholding of the order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Reduction of penalty by CEGAT.
5. Review petition filed challenging the Tribunal's order.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing LPG Cylinders, availed Modvat credit on inputs like H.R. Sheets/Coils. The Additional Commissioner found that they claimed credit on inputs not used for manufacturing cylinders, demanding duty and imposing a penalty under relevant Central Excise Rules.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, leading to a second stage appeal before CEGAT. The final order by CEGAT affirmed the decision but reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants.
3. The Review petition challenges the Tribunal's order. The petitioners argue that the wastage in manufacturing LPG Cylinders is higher than accounted for, questioning the differential duty demand. However, the Tribunal emphasized the legal duty of the assessee to account for inputs and dismissed the petitioners' submissions for lack of evidence.
4. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted that decisions validly made cannot be reviewed based on alleged errors in fact or law. The Tribunal clarified that it lacks the power to review its orders, rejecting the petitioners' attempt to introduce fresh facts for a favorable review.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Review petition as it sought a reappraisal of facts and admission of new evidence, which is impermissible under the law. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of complying with legal duties in claiming credits and emphasized the limitations on reviewing validly made decisions.
-
2002 (8) TMI 442
Issues:
Admissibility of Modvat credit on proforma invoices.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the admissibility of Modvat credit on proforma invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially held that the proforma invoices in question were not eligible for Modvat credit as they did not qualify as duty paying documents under Rule 52A. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plastic parts, argued that the proforma invoices contained all necessary details and were pre-authenticated, thus justifying the Modvat credit availed. The appellant contended that the proforma invoices, although marked as such, fulfilled the requirements of Rule 52A and were not merely indicative of prices but contained all essential particulars for availing Modvat credit.
The appellant further cited the judgment in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Moldtek Plastics Ltd., where it was established that job workers are entitled to Modvat credit. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision highlighted that stock transfers could constitute a sale transaction under the Central Excise Act, making the proforma invoices eligible for Modvat credit. The appellant emphasized that since all necessary details were present in the documents, denial of Modvat credit was unwarranted.
On the other hand, the Department argued that proforma invoices, in commercial terms, were not specified under Rule 57G(2)/57G(3) for availing Modvat credit. The Department relied on the precedent set by the Larger Bench in the case of Avis Electronics, emphasizing the mandatory nature of document requirements under the rules. However, upon careful examination, the Tribunal found that the disputed document, although labeled as a proforma invoice, contained all essential particulars required under Rule 52A and 57A for claiming Modvat credit. The Tribunal concluded that the document, despite being marked as a proforma invoice, qualified as a duty-paying document, allowing the appeal and granting any consequential relief as per the law.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the eligibility of proforma invoices for Modvat credit, emphasizing the importance of containing all necessary particulars as per the rules. The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of document scrutiny and adherence to legal requirements for claiming such credits, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the document's compliance with duty payment specifications.
-
2002 (8) TMI 441
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalties under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Retraction of statements and its legal implications.
4. Quantum of penalties imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of penalties under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act:
The appellants challenged the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act. The penalties were based on the recovery of foreign-origin silk yarns from a truck intercepted by Customs officers and subsequent investigations, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The case against the appellants was built on the recovery of goods and statements recorded under Section 108. The driver and his companion admitted the goods were being transported to one of the appellants, and documents recovered from the appellant's residence showed accounts related to the business of dealing in foreign-origin silk yarn. The statements of the appellants and other individuals were crucial in establishing the connection with the smuggled goods.
3. Retraction of statements and its legal implications:
Several appellants retracted their statements, claiming they were made under coercion. The Tribunal examined the validity of these retractions. It was noted that retractions should be addressed to the authority that recorded the statement, not to any extraneous authority. In this case, the retractions were not considered valid as they were not addressed to the DRI, the authority that recorded the original statements.
4. Quantum of penalties imposed:
The Tribunal reviewed the penalties imposed on each appellant and made the following observations:
(i) Appeal No. C/466/2000 (Sh. Krishan Mohan Tiwari): The appellant admitted to transporting smuggled goods and did not retract his statement. The Tribunal found the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- justified but reduced it to Rs. 12,000/- considering the circumstances.
(ii) Appeal No. C/460/2000 (Sh. Deepak Mishra): The appellant was identified as the consignee, and documents recovered from his residence linked him to the smuggled goods. Despite his denial, the Tribunal found the evidence credible and upheld the penalty but reduced it from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.
(iii) Appeal No. C/461/2000 (Sh. K.P. Mishra): No connection was established between the appellant and the goods. The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.
(iv) Appeal Nos. C/462, 463, and 502/2000 (Sh. Mukesh Mishra, Sh. Rajendra Kumar Mishra, and Sh. Anjani Kumar Shah): The Tribunal found no evidence linking these appellants to the smuggled goods. The penalties imposed were set aside.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the penalties for Sh. Krishan Mohan Tiwari and Sh. Deepak Mishra, reducing them to Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The penalties imposed on Sh. K.P. Mishra, Sh. Mukesh Mishra, Sh. Rajendra Kumar Mishra, and Sh. Anjani Kumar Shah were set aside due to lack of evidence linking them to the smuggled goods. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
............
|
9911796707
