2008 (4) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - M/s. Harrods Garments have filed this appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. RS/25-26/SRT-II/07 dated 29-1-2007 confirming penalty of Rs. 7,04,101/- under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. During the visit, officers of the Department have found shortage of 20,248 Sq.Mts. of 100% Polyester fabrics. The partner of the unit admitted that he had sold th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand has been confirmed under Section 28 of Customs Act and the Adjudicating Authority has no power to do so. 4. Ld. DR argued that the penalty imposed need not be reduced in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Bageswari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2008 (222) E.L.T. 204 (Bombay)] wherein it has been held that unless duty, interest and 25% 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

....ithin the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and the appellate authority as far as operations as 100% EOU are concerned. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1048 (Tri.-Chennai)]  cited by the Advocate clearly states that for post-import violation of conditions of EOU, Commissioner-in-charge of the EOU would have jurisdiction. Comin....