TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellants for violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with an option to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellants have a factory at Saki Naka, Bombay, at which factory the appellants refine non-ferrous Metal Waste, Dross Ash and such residues. In their business the Appellants regularly import Graphite Crucibles for use of melting apparatus for melting/refining of non-ferrous metals and residue. They require these crucibles continuously as the life of a crucible varies approximately from 24 hours to 72 hours and they are 25 to 30 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary import at GBP 178 as it was made through a local indentor and was as per purported price list dated 1-10-1983 effective up to 31-3-1984 of the manufacturers. In the case on hand the goods were imported through the suppliers after direct negotiation and agreed upon price independent of an intendent and price list. It is to be mentioned here the copies of relevant documents relied upon the Show Cause Notice were given to the appellants. A personal hearing was given to them on 20-4-1987, when Advocates for the importers appeared who explained the difference between the goods in the instant case and the price of goods indicated by the department they sought time for writing to the supplier to explain the difference between invoices raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Cause Notice the impugned order directing confiscation and levying penalty suffers from legal infirmity. 8. Moreover the appellants had desired an adjournment to get an explanation from the manufacturers as to the price difference which the lower authority could have given. 9. Apart from that in the reply to the Show Cause Notice at paragraphs 3.2 to 3.7 the appellants have explained how the price of the goods have been arrived at and also how the reference to contemporary import was incorrect in law which the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate in the impugned order. 10. Hence in our view the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity as indicated above hence it is set aside. Appeal is allowed with co....