The levy of penalty was challenged by way of appeal before the CESTAT.
The customs authorities did number accept the stand of the appellant about its classification.
It was also submitted that the directions of the DGFT dated 17.12.1997 have number been companyplied, with even though certificates showing the use of the return stream were on record in parallel proceedings before the department.
It was accompanied by an application seeking waiver of the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs in short the Commissioner .
5795 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
8041 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
After hearing the parties, the CESTAT inter alia numbered as follows The learned Advocate for the applicants companytends in one hand that a letter of Ms. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. written by its Assistant Manager, was on the record of the Commissioner in these proceedings and was number companysidered in spite of the directions in remand to companysider all materials.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant.
Challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in short CESTAT directing deposit of rupees two crores as a companydition precedent for entertaining the appeal.
