TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , system imported was to be used in premises which was 100% EOU – Tribunal upheld order of penalty as imposed by adjudicating authority – Held that:- provision of Section 114A as existed at relevant time confirmed same on part of adjudicating authority in matter of imposition of penalty – Having regard to valuation of conditions contained in Notification No. 13/81-Cus., reducing penalty but even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods imported that was evaded by the respondent herein, the Tribunal has upheld the duty by affirming the finding of the adjudicating authority holding that the system imported by the respondent was removed without permission from the Revenue and was being used in a premises other than 100% EOU, the condition subject to which the same is allowed to be imported free duty under Notification 13/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty which was not warranted. 2. The reasons given by the Tribunal are that the condition of Notification was contravened only on or after 10-12-1996 when the system was withdrawn and therefore maximum penalty was not warranted. 3. We find that the provision of Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, as they existed at the relevant time confirmed the same on the part of the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
