2004 (8) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lants were found to have not adhered & meted the conditions prescribed under the said Notification. Proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice dated 26-12-2000 in respect of the equipments imported and cleared during the period June 1998 and February 1994 proprietary duty demand of Rs. 4,40,31,340/- under the proviso to Section 28(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and liability for confiscation under Section 111(o) and Penalty under Section 112(a) was confirmed. The machinery was ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers were given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le to sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act. It would not attract Section 28(1) of the Customs Act which covers the cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc. The order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) would be an integral part of proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon, on the ground as in this case that the importer had violated the conditions of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. A reference may beneficially be made to a decision of this Court reported in Mohan Meakins Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = (2000) 1 SCC 462 wherein....