2011 (1) TMI 869 - AT - Customs

Reduced the redemption fine and quantum of personal penalty - Appellant has imported Incomplete Used Rusted Diesel Engines with Gear Box Self and have not misdeclared the description of goods - Appellant referred that the same adjudicating authority in its order dated 04.03.2006 has taken the assessable of the same goods to be Rs. 6, 150/- per piece and market value to be Rs. 8, 500/- per piece whereas in the present case the same goods were assessed at Rs. 7, 900/- per piece and market value at Rs. 12, 500/- per piece - Appellants have cited Hon ble Tribunal Final Order No. 1071/06-SM(BR) dated 03.07.06 in the case of M/s. Supreme Enterprises Delhi and No. 1590/06-SM (BR) date d31.10.2006 in their own case wherein the Tribunal has upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Central Excise Chandigarh wherein redemption fine and penalty were substantially reduced - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Reduced redemption fine and quantum of personal penalty upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) challenged by Revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reduce the redemption fine and quantum of personal penalty imposed on the respondents. The Revenue contended that the higher fines were justified due to the repeated import of second-hand goods without proper licenses, emphasizing the need for deterrence to prevent such activities. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) justified the reduction based on various reasons and precedent cases from the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the specific reasoning provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reduction in fines and penalties. The Tribunal found the reasons given by the appellate authority to be sufficient and justifiable, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

In the detailed analysis, it is evident that the key point of contention was the imposition of fines and penalties on the respondents for importing incomplete used and rusted diesel engines without misdeclaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fines and penalties based on the argument that a common market value for all the engines could not be accepted, considering the varying conditions of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to previous Tribunal decisions where fines were substantially reduced under similar circumstances. The Tribunal, after examining the arguments and precedents, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to lower the redemption fine and penalty, stating that no interference was required in this regard. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the reduced fines and penalties imposed on the respondents.

Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of justifying fines and penalties based on the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account factors such as market value, previous decisions, and the need for deterrence against unauthorized imports. The decision underscores the significance of following established legal principles and precedents in determining appropriate sanctions in customs and excise matters.