9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscation, has set aside the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent on the ground that the duty has been paid before show cause notice was issued and therefore no penalty could be imposed. The appeal has been admitted on 10-3-2006 for consideration of the following questions of law. (1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in setting aside the order, imposing penalty despite confirming the order of confiscation? (2) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in setting aside the order of penalty and interest contrary to the provisions of Sections 72 and 112 of the Customs Act? (3) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intelligence of irregularities, officers of DRI Bangalore visited their premises, took stock of material in the warehouse, verified all the records of import under FPCG scheme by the appellants and noticed that bearing covered by Bond No. 10/95-96 and 2/96-97 had been used in machinery erected before the month of November, 1996. The Chief General Manager of the appellant company identified the bearings and the machinery on which they had been mounted. He gave the details of the bearings mounted on the main equipment and stated that the bearings covered by the above said two bonds had been utilized in implementation of the project before they were debonded from the CWC warehouse. Since it was found the warehoused goods were removed clandest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This Court by order dated 18-2-2003 has set aside the Order No. 1/2001, dated 30-3-2001 of the Adjudicating Authority, and Order No. 419/2002, dated 23-3-2002 of the Tribunal. The Commissioner was directed to follow the direction of the Tribunal contained in Paragraph 6 of the order dated 31-8-1999 passed by the Tribunal and to complete the proceeding by 30-6-2003. Accordingly the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore passed the order which was again challenged in W.P. No. 32291/2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by relegating the petition to the Tribunal and the Tribunal was directed to consider the appeal without insisting on limitation and to complete the proceedings within four months from the date of filing the appeal. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not absolve the assessee of paying penalty and interest. Therefore order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside by answering the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 5. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and scrutinized the materials on record. 6. In all, seven substantial questions of law have been framed at the time of admission. It is clear from the substance of the said substantial questions of law that, if the question as to whether the assessee who has deposited the duty before issuance of show cause notice is absolved of his liability to pay penalty. If that question is answered, the same would answer all the substantial questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
