9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this appeal the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 10-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,21,065/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported goods "integrated circuits" as parts of the radio cassette recorder. The goods were got cleared by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of penalty on the ground that they themselves voluntarily deposited the differential duty and there was no mala fide intention on their part to evade duty and that the show cause notice was issued after 3 years of clearance of the goods, the Commissioner of Customs through the impugned order had imposed penalty of the amount equal to the differential duty amount of Rs. 4,21,065/- deposited by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and letter of even date was submitted by the appellants. But the show cause notice was issued to the appellants only on 5-2-2002 after the expiry of the statutory period in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act. Therefore, no penalty could be legally imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a). 4. Apart from this, even otherwise keeping in view the fact and circumstances detailed above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
