TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (8) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - These two stay applications have been preferred by the Appellants being aggrieved by the impugned order. In one application, there is a prayer for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 6,95,933.94 and penalty of Rs. 2.50 Lakh while in the second application, the prayer is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n payment of duty on 21-12-1990 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 31-7-1991, thus the Show Cause Notice was beyond the period of six months and, therefore, the demand is time-barred. It was also argued by the ld. Counsels for the applicants that it was the established practice of the Customs Houses that on import of software (Diskettes and Manuals) the price was apportioned in the ratio of 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rosoft. It was also contended that in no case, the demand can be under Section 125 of the Customs Act. As against this, the ld. SDR submitted that it was a case of seizure and since the adjudicating authority had allowed redemption of the goods on payment of fine, therefore, duty has correctly been demanded under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. The ld. SDR argued that this sub-section stipulate....