2004 (4) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri P.M. Saleem, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  These stay applications are taken up for consideration which arises from Order-in-Original No. 9/2003. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant for not fulfilling the export obligation in terms of the double bond executed by them and in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udicated the matter and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and only thereafter the proceedings have commenced; ld. Advocate submits that in terms of Board Circular, the Department had to wait till such time as the Development Commissioner determines all the points. Ld. Consultant submits that the Department has taken action prematurely and the proceedings are not sustainable. He relies on the j....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en distinguished by the ld. SDR and pointed out the same is not applicable to the facts as in those cases the proceedings had been concluded even before the Development Commissioner had considered the matter in terms of the Board Circular. On our prima facie consideration, we notice that in the present case the matter had already been adjudicated by the Development Commissioner and the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edings. We do not find any infirmity in the proceedings. Admittedly, export obligations have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the demand raised by confirming duty is justified. Therefore, the appellants are required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 6,95,52,486/- (Rs. Six crores ninety-five lakhs fifty-two thousand four hundred eighty-six only) and also further duty amount of Rs. 13,18,276/- (Rs. Th....