9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate for the Appellant. Shri M.K. Msarangi, Joint Commissioner (A.R) for the Respondent. ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the adjudication order. 2. The case relates to import of goods by the appellant who are an 100% EOU. The goods were imported free of duty under Notification No. 13/81-Cus dt. 9.2.1981 under the EOU Scheme. Thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the goods imported by them in 1995 and in 1996 for failure to observe the conditions of Notification No.13/81. It was also proposed to confiscate the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Penalty was proposed under Section 112 of the Act. In adjudication proceedings, Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act and appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner upheld confiscation when this point was not in appeal before him. 3. Heard both sides. 4. We find that the case has not been dealt with appropriately right from the time of issue of show cause notice for the following reasons: (i) The computation of duty demand does not appear to be correct as the prevailing rates of duty have not been considered. (ii) No finding has been given on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal memorandum before him. 5. For all the above reasons, we find that this is an appropriate case for remand on all issues except point (iv) above. 6. As regards point (iv) in para 4 above, that is the issue of penalty, we find that once the goods are held not liable to confiscation, the question of penalty does not arise under Section 112 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
