2010 (6) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The facts of the case briefly are that against order dated 29th April, 2005 made by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal reliance was placed upon an order made by the Tribunal in the case of the sister unit in whose case the D.G.F.T. authorities had since granted an extension of the period for fulfillment of export obligation on the basis of which the appeal had been allowed and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to rehear the petitioner and thereafter to determine the duty and consequent penal liabilities, if any, only after the extended period was over. Though in the present case extension had no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es for the parties on the question of stay and waiver of pre-deposit held that the petitioner/appellant had not made out a prima-facie case for total waiver of the duty as confirmed by the Commissioner in his order dated 31st January, 2007 and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crore within a period of twelve weeks and to report compliance on 29th October, 2007. The Tribunal further observed that subject to payment of pre-deposit as above, pre-deposit of balance duty and penalty imposed upon the petitioner-Company would stand waived. It was further held that non-payment of pre-deposit would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice to the petitioner-Company. 4. Mr. Hardik P. Modh, learned advocate for the petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ha Enterprises, Delhi, during the period 7-10-1996 to 24-12-1996 under DEEC Scheme and were not utilized for the purposes stipulated in the licence. The Tribunal noted that Commissioner had held that the duty was not being sought for on account of non-fulfillment of the export obligation but on the ground of diversion of imported goods and that petitioner-Company had not informed the Customs Authority about diversion of duty-free goods. It was also noted that the imported goods had been diverted and sold in the market more than a decade back. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal, was of the view that this was not a prima-facie case for total waiver of the duty as confirmed by the Commissioner in his order dated 31st Januar....