9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. Shri Anand Shah, Authorized Representative (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal and the stay application have arisen out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 691(Drawback/2012) JNCH/EXP-Mumbai II, dated 22-11-2012. 2. The appellant M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. filed shipping Bill No. 8111637, dated 21-3-2012 for export of goods giving declaration as "Turbo Generators - partial ship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the adjudicating authority; however, the fine was reduced from ₹ 1.50 lakhs to ₹ 1.25 lakhs and penalty from ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 75,000/-; but for the above modification, the order of the lower appellate authority was upheld. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the provisions of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icing the same. In view of the above, he submits that the question of imposition of penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation thereof, etc., would not arise at all. He also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) wherein it was held that if the exemption was claimed on the belief that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case, it is for the Customs authority to verify the claim of the appellant and determine the quantum of drawback the appellant is eligible for. In the case of Northern Plastic Ltd., the Apex Court held that if the appellant being importer claimed duty exemption on the bona fide belief that he is eligible for exemption, it cannot be said to be a misdeclaration as contemplated by Section 111(m) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
