9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Appeal by Revenue under Section 130 against orders of Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The appellant filed an application under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking condonation of a 309-day delay in filing the appeal. The court allowed the condonation of the delay based on reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit. Subsequently, in another application under the same section, the appellant requested condonation of a 768-day delay in re-filing the appeal, which was also granted by the court. Issue 2: Appeal by Revenue Against Confiscation of Goods and Penalties Imposed: The Revenue appealed under Section 130 of the Act against orders from the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved the submission of nine Bills of Entry for clearance of goods without providing necessary certificates, leading to the goods being liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority found the goods liable for confiscation and imposed penalties under Section 112. The respondent appealed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty charges and confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty. The Tribunal affirmed this decision. The Revenue, still aggrieved, filed an appeal. The appellant's counsel cited a previous judgment to argue against the reduction of redemption fine, claiming mens rea was not necessary for confiscation in cases of import policy violations. However, the court noted that the cited judgment required mens rea for confiscation and that the penalty amount was at the authorities' discretion. The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reduce the redemption fine and personal penalty, as Section 125 of the Act allows for the imposition of fines up to the market price of confiscated goods. The court found the reduction justified based on the facts of the case, dismissing the appeal. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and the reduction of the redemption fine and personal penalty.
|
