2000 (3) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ries Ltd. (applicants) against Order-in-Appeal No. 134/Cal-IV/98, dated 22-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Calcutta. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Asstt. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakh under Rule 209 of the CER, 1944 for the reason that the exports effected after 17-2-1992 were without payment of duty and without any authority of law thus contrave....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er bond. Hence the penalty imposed is not sustainable. Since all the goods were exported the hefty penalty is unwarranted. Besides Rule 209 under which the penalty has been imposed is not applicable to them as they are under Self Removal Procedure. In any case since no duty has been evaded and they exported the goods under supervision of the departmental officers the quantum of penalty is too hars....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d itself and that the bond itself was not discharged to the applicants, implying that the bond was current at the material time. 5. As for the reliance in the case law Jayant Vitamins Ltd. reported supra the same is distinguishable in that the Asstt. Commissioner is competent to decide the cases of the nature involved in revision now and hence has jurisdiction in the matter. 6. In so far as ....