2007 (9) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Use in Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, imposing penalty of Rs. 30,89,87,685/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in respect of show cause notice dated 6-3-2006), confirming demand of differential customs duty of Rs. 3,92,359/- under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Use in Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, imposing penalty of Rs. 3,92,359/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in respect of show cause notice dated 13-8-2004), confiscating goods valued at Rs. 21,78,310/- but permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and confirming recovery of interest. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me of the production of the applicant was actually done in their adjacent 100% EOU and it was shown as if the same were manufactured in the applicant's factory and accordingly the records were fabricated. 5. The Order-in-Original No. 19-20/EX-CUS/2003 dated 11-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner in the case of the 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) has subsumed in the Order of the Tribunal bearing No. A/539 to 552/WZB/05/CI dated 17-6-2005 [2005 (188) E.L.T. 210 (T)]. The Tribunal's order was challenged by the 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal on 3-5-2007 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. During the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in para 2 above. 7. It is the contention of the applicant that this case is linked and inter connected to the case, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case, and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recoveries of the duty and penalties, in all fairness, should not be effected in the instant case, as the prayer of the 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) for de-bonding with effect from the date of application i.e., 6-10-2001 is pending before the Supreme Court, which has material bearing relating to the demand of duty in the instant case. Their contention is that they wanted to de-bond the 100% EOU (E-3 Plant) and migrate to EPCG Scheme and while....