9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - All these appeals arise from a common O-I-O No. 366/2002, dated 23-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai. The allegation against the appellants were that they had failed to fulfill the export obligation in terms of the EPCG licence issued to them by DGF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They had failed to comply with the said terms and hence, proceedings were initiated and the duties and penalties have been confirmed. The imported goods were also confiscated. However, they were given option to redeem the goods on payment of fine. 2. The contention of the appellant is that they have deposited the differential duty and complied with the terms of the order. They are seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. CC, Chennai - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Chennai) (vii) Fal Industries Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 215 (Tri.-Chennai) It is contended by the Learned Counsel that in terms of the above cited judgments, the Tribunal has been pleased to set aside the imposition of penalty, interest and RF on the ground that if there are extenuating factors preventing the appellants from fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r best efforts, they could not find suitable markets or orders for exporting their goods and, therefore, this resulted in non-compliance of the export obligation within the time stipulated. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the cited judgments, the penalty, interest and fine should be set aside. 3.The learned JDR defended the order and submitted that fine, penalty and interest should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
