2013 (10) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The applicants are in appeals against the impugned order wherein the demand of duty of Rs.5,33,90,484/- has been confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the main appellant and penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- imposed on Shri A.N .Jha by denying the benefit of Notification No.40/2006-Cus dated 01.05.2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were gra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed alongwith interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the said order the applicants are before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have discharged export obligation and also obtained EODC from DGFT pm 18.05.2009 although late but it is a fact on records that they have discharged the export obligation and they have obtained permission to sale the goods in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at all. He further submits that the Condition No.2 of the Notification is applicable to their case as the same is an independent condition as after discharge of export obligation as specified in condition (v) of paragraph 1, the Regional Authority shall permit transfer of the said authorization and/or the goods imported under it subject to such conditions as may be specified. In this case the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stic market, they were not having EODC. They were also not having authority to dispose of the goods in the open market and the same is in violation of the Condition No.2 of the said Notification. He further submits that as nobody knows about what condition licensing authority will impose on the applicants therefore without permission from the licensing authority the applicants cannot be dispose of....