2015 (12) TMI 1485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....B. Sharma, D.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh: Appeal is filed against order-in-appeal dated 31.3.2010 in terms of which customs duty amounting to Rs. 2,73,372/- was confirmed along with interest, and equal mandatory penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was also imposed. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellant is a 100% EOU. It procured raw material withou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. The appellant has contended that there was no pilferage of the goods imported and the difference in the weight of cotton normally arises as a result of variation in the moisture contained at the time of supply and at the time of receipt of goods in the factory and that realising the same even the CBEC had issued a Circular No. 462/41/93-CU dated 15.4.83 stating that variation up to 1% may ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... loss in weight up to 1% was condonable, although it gave no scientific basis as to how the figure of 1% was arrived at. Further, there is nothing sacrosanct about the figure of 1% mentioned in the said letter CBEC. For example if the difference in weight up to 1% was a result of diversion of goods, that would be chargeable to duty. Notification No. 53/97-Cus. exempts the goods imported for use in....