TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed in the Stay Order No. S/17/2002/NB(D), dated 13-12-2001. 2. The issue in this case is whether the concessional rate was applicable to the imported goods in terms of Notification No. 34/98, dated 13-6-98 superseded by Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98. Since the issue stood decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tarsem Singh Multani Sons v. C.C., Amritsar reported in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible to the appellants. Accordingly, the demand of duty was confirmed, interest was also charged and penalty of Rs. 82,235/- was imposed. 4. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri H.S. Mew, learned Counsel submits that same issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani Sons and the Tribunal in that case held that imposition of penalty was not provided under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for levy of penalty w.e.f. 1-5-98 and the import in the instant case took place during the months of September to December. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order regarding demand of duty and demand of interest. However, looking to the facts of the case and the evidences on record we reduce the penalty to Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand). The appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
