2008 (9) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In this application filed by Shri A.V. Swamy, Managing Director of M/s. Sharpscan & Prints Ltd. (SPL) has sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). 2. After hearing both sides on the stay application, the appeal proper is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides. SPL had impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Commissioner found that the importer was not in a position to fulfil the export obligation as per the EPCG licence though the time limit for discharging the same was extended upto 23-2-2010 by the DGFT. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner demanded the exemption availed by SPL on import of the impugned machinery along with appropriate interest. He confiscated the impugned goods under Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....competent licensing authority had extended the time limit for discharging export obligation upto the year 2010. Another ground is that for relocating the machines at a premises not approved as per the endorsement in the EPCG licence, the authority competent to penalize the importer or its Managing Director was the DGFT and not the Commissioner of Customs. Ld. Counsel representing the appellant rei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings of the Commissioner leading to imposition of penalty on the appellant. 5. I have considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. In the decision of the Tribunal reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 107 (Tri.-Chen) it was held that the impugned order was premature in that it had ordered confiscation and penalty for failure to discharge export obligation for which DGFT had allowed time ....