2006 (2) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....awing machine under the EPCG scheme. They installed one of the machines in the job workers premises, thereby violating the condition laid down in Para 6 of the Notification No. 110/95-Cus., dated 5-6-95. Revenue proceeded against the appellants for demand of differential duty. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation of the machine under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He gave an option to redeem the machine on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Further, he demanded Customs duty of Rs. 63,567/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Penalties of Rs. 5000/- each were imposed on S/Shri Channabasappa and Shri Shiva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the following case laws. a.  Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). b.  Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.). (vii)   The Show Cause Notice does not allege any of the ingredients under proviso to Section 28 for invoking the longer period. (viii) It was contended that the Department issued Show Cause Notice dated 13-6-2000 alleging that the appellant had installed one machine at their sister concern M/s. Vivek Auto Cord without prior permission. After the issue of Show Cause Notice dated 13-6-2000 by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, ICD adjudicated the same issue based on earlier....