9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - It is contended that, out of the demand of duty of Rs. 54.49 lacs (approximately) Rs. 45,000/- is not disputed, and Rs. 1.00 lac has already been paid, thus leaving the amount not required to be deposited is Rs. 53.04 lacs. A penalty of Rs. 50.00 lacs under Rule 173Q has also been imposed. 2. Advocate for the applicant says ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of spares subsequently purchased by it, or of these spares which it subsequently cleared without payment of duty. It is contended that this position has been known throughout to the department in that various officers, who took the stock of the goods did not find anything wrong. He further contends that the Commissioner has not considered these facts which were brought to his notice, and has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained by the applicant did not have a separate section for each kind of spares "bought out" (of which there are about 3500 varieties) or the goods manufactured by it. The only basis for the applicant's claim is its internal records such as issue slips etc. It is no doubt correct prima facie that the applicant has been buying some of these goods from outside. This is shown by delivery challan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be arbitrary. We cannot however adopt an equally arbitrary method suggested by the applicant only because that method is in its favour. Taking all these factors into account, we are of the view that, on the applicant depositing Rs. 25.00 lacs towards duty within three months from today, we waive pre deposit of the balance of duty and penalty.
6. Compliance on 1-9-1997. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
