2006 (7) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ettlement of proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice No.VIII/10/20/2004-Cus-Adjn., dated 21-4-2004, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, demanding a duty of Rs. 27,94,325/- apart from proposal to impose penalty and recovery of interest under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfilment of conditions of export obligations under EPCG Licence. Under an Order-in-Original, passed on 1-8-2005, the above duty demand was confirmed, apart from interest on the duty amount and imposition of penalty on the applicant firm as well as the co-applicant, Shri Rajeev Hundekar, Managing Director of the applicant firm. 2. In the Admission Order No. 30/2005-Cus., dated 5-10-2005, this Bench had held that the adjudication of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cant did not comply with the directions of the Bench, the Bench was initially of the view that the present request did not merit any favourable consideration. However, the applicant's Advocate pleaded that he required two months time to make the full payment. Vide an Interim Order, dated 22-5-2006, the Bench directed the applicant to pay the entire differential duty by 30-6-2006. 5. The case was posted for hearing on 25-7-2007, for final disposal, when S/Shri H.N. Varadaraja Iyengar, Superintendent and B.K. Gopala Krishna, Inspector, Customs, ICD, Bangalore, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Neither the Advocate, nor any representative of the applicant firm turned up. No communication was received stating reasons for not turning up n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....put on notice on 21-4-2004, proposing to demand the duty excluding the demand already confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Bangalore, together with interest. The application for settlement was filed on 28-7-2005. Even after issue of Admission Order, the applicant was reluctant to come forward in depositing the duty demand and, instead, filed petitions for making payment in instalments, which was permitted but not complied with. However, the applicant did not bother either to attend the hearing on 25-7-2006 or send any communication, seeking adjournment. Meanwhile, it has been brought to the notice of the Bench that M/s. Preusse India Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mrs. Gudrun Geodic, Managing Director, has filed a Writ Petition....