AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (6) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are the manufacturers of "H & T Steels strips and Band saw blades" and they also exported the said products under the claim of drawback under the Customs & Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1971 and 1995, as the case may be. 2. During the years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, they filed a number of applications with the Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The above proceedings were culminated in the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur passing an Order dt. 8-10-1999 in which he ordered for the recovery of the aforestated amount availed by the appellants in excess and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on them under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The present appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the Commissioner of Customs. As regards the reliance placed on the decision in the TELCO case, it may be stated that in that decision the penalty was waived, as the act of the appellants was considered bona fide on the facts submitted before the Tribunal and in the second case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., the duty involved was only of Rs. 3,264/- and on this ground, the penalty of Rs. 500....