https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101643 The Tribunal considered whether waiver of pre-deposit and stay of penalty recovery were justified where drawback had been wrongly claimed on exported agricultural implements and confiscation under Section 113 was alleged. It observed that clause (i) of Section 113 was debatable, but the shipping bill indicated that the goods were not entitled to drawback, making prima facie liability difficult to deny. It also noted that the drawback had already been refunded and that penalty could not be imposed on a partnership firm and its partners in the manner suggested for one applicant. Deposit of the penalty imposed on Mahendra Hiralal Patel was waived and recovery stayed, subject to specified deposits by the remaining applicants. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:13:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101643 The Tribunal considered whether waiver of pre-deposit and stay of penalty recovery were justified where drawback had been wrongly claimed on exported agricultural implements and confiscation under Section 113 was alleged. It observed that clause (i) of Section 113 was debatable, but the shipping bill indicated that the goods were not entitled to drawback, making prima facie liability difficult to deny. It also noted that the drawback had already been refunded and that penalty could not be imposed on a partnership firm and its partners in the manner suggested for one applicant. Deposit of the penalty imposed on Mahendra Hiralal Patel was waived and recovery stayed, subject to specified deposits by the remaining applicants. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101643