2003 (5) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions 72(1) and 61(2) of the Act, confiscating the imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Act with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 crore and imposing on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act. 2. The appellants were an Electronics Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) unit under the 100% Export-Oriented Scheme, engaged in the manufacture and export of Aluminium Cans (housings) for Aluminium Electrolytic capacitors and lead Tabs for Electrolytic Capacitors, both falling under sub-heading 8532.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They were entitled to import specified goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 96/93-Cus., dated 2-3-93 (as amended) for the manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion, the approval had automatically lapsed on expiration of three years from the date of its issue (10-6-1992). The effect of the NEPZ action was that the approval granted to the party by NEPZ, Noida for import of goods duty-free stood cancelled w.e.f. 22-6-2000. The licence issued under Section 58 of the Customs Act also expired on 22-11-2000. As the appellants had failed to discharge the 100% export obligation, the Department, by show-cause notice, proposed to recover Customs duty on the capital goods and raw materials which were imported by them without payment of duty claiming the benefit of Notification No. 96/93-Cus. The notice also proposed confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. No reply to the show cause notice was fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lleged violation of natural justice. The appellants have no case that they did not receive the show-cause notice. They did not reply to it, nor did they respond to the notices of hearing issued by the Commissioner. No valid reason has been stated in the present appeal as to why the appellants did not turn up before the Commissioner for being heard. The plea of violation of natural justice is bereft of bona fides/merit and the same is rejected. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellants failed to comply with condition No. 2(vi) of the licence issued to them on 11-5-93 for establishment of the EHTP. The condition was that they must export the entire production in five years. According to this condition, they had to export goods worth....