2011 (6) TMI 633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OU after getting necessary permission from the Department of Industrial Development, Government of India. Thereafter they imported a few capital goods without payment of customs duty by availing exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981. They also obtained a few other capital goods from indigenous sources without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Central Excise Notification Nos. 123/81, dated 2-6-1981 and 1/95-C.E., dated 1-3-1995. The respondent was not able to meet the conditions imposed on them at the time of approval of their EOU regarding export of final products. So they applied to the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Andheri for de-bonding their unit. Before permissions were given and without paying duty on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed willfully and for that reason, he did not impose any penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 or under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. While deciding on the quantum of penalty, we have considered the fact that the respondent is already out of his business and their assets are already taken over by creditors. 5. The Revenue has filed this appeal on the limited point that Commissioner should have confiscated the goods and imposed penalty. The argument is that they have wilfully defaulted in fulfilling the export obligation. The reason given by the respondent for their poor performances was unprecedented devaluation of Korean currency between the year 1994 to 1997. It is argued....