2013 (10) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Reduction in Fine and Penalty Held that - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine and penalty in proportion to redemption fine and penalty imposed on the ground that the same have been imposed without ascertaining the margin of profit on market verification - The grievance of the department was if that was so the learned Commissioner (Appeals) could have determined the margin of profit if need or could have remanded back the case the Department had also not made any efforts to ascertain the margin of profit before/after filing the appeal - One cannot beat another with a stick which does not exist there was no reason to interfere with the order - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) s order was upheld and the Revenue s appeal was dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of redemption fine and penalty imposed against the respondent.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal that reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent. The respondent had imported used copier machines without the required license, leading to confiscation of the goods. The respondent was given the option to redeem the goods by paying a redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine and penalty, prompting the Revenue to appeal.

The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reducing the redemption fine and penalty without determining the margin of profit. However, upon review, it was noted that the Department had not made any efforts to ascertain the margin of profit either before or after filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that one cannot base arguments on non-existent evidence, highlighting that the Department did not provide any basis for determining the margin of profit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the Department failed to provide necessary evidence regarding the margin of profit. The judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with relevant information and conducting due diligence before appealing decisions.