TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority. Export of candle sticks - brass or aluminium candle sticks – Held that;- Authorities have not only noticed and gone on the brochure or catalogue of the petitioner, but have also referred to the discrepancies in weight and recorded their findings that the weight of aluminium candle sticks would be much less than the weight of brass candle sticks - Again reliance has been placed on the duplicate papers/documents – Since the findings recorded on the said aspect are also factual and thus, need not require any interference by this Court. Reduction of penalty – Held That:- As penalty was reduced by the first appellate authority to Rs. 9,86,922/-, i.e., the value of the duty drawback wrongly or fraudulently availed of by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch clearly showed that what was required to be exported was brass candle sticks and not aluminium candle sticks. Export consignment was checked and found to be in order. Lastly, it is submitted that the authority has not dealt with the question of penalty and has not noticed that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 9,89,922/- even before the issue of show cause notice. 3. We have considered the said contentions. As far as duty drawback of Rs. 9,86,922/- is concerned, it is an accepted position that the same was paid. Subsequently, specific information was received from an informer that the petitioner had fraudulently claimed duty drawback by manipulating export documents such as shipping bills, invoices, packing lists etc. There were parall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded on the said aspect are also factual and we do not think they require any interference by this Court. 5. The last aspect pertains to penalty. As already noticed above, the penalty was reduced by the first appellate authority to Rs. 9,86,922/-, i.e., the value of the duty drawback wrongly or fraudulently availed of by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this aspect has not been adverted to or examined by the Central Government in their order under Section 129DD of the Act. The order is silent. He submits that the petitioner had paid the entire amount on 4th December, 2009 and show cause notice was issued subsequently on 10th June, 2010. He argues that under Section 114A if penalty is deposited within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
