TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner holding that the exemption granted to the appellant was not available because the appellant had failed to fulfil the condition of exemption notification and the terms of the bond executed in compliance of the terms of the notification and ordering the appellant to pay an amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay the amount of Rs. 28,73,236/- leviable on the missing periscopes on the ground that the appellant had not fulfilled their obligation. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there was a calculation error in demanding a sum of Rs. 28,73,236/- because the duty on the value of the goods stolen was demanded for the finished goods while the duty payable on the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destruction caused by whatsoever reason, whether theft, fire, accident including pilferage. 5. The learned authorized representative for the department submitted that the demand for Rs. 28,73,236/- was correctly made in view of the bond and the undertaking given by the appellant, and therefore, there was no valid reason to reduce the liability of the appellant to the value of the goods imported. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not include the goods, which are stolen. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lacs only) within eight weeks from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. On the amount being so deposited, there shall be waiver of the remaining amount payable under the impugned order. Post th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
