9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1250 - AT - CustomsImposition of redemption fine - Enhancement in penalty - Held that - On the account of redemption fine, there is no material from the appellant to suggest that redemption fine should not have been imposed. There appears no reason to intervene to the quantum of redemption fine determined by learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant fails on this count but succeeds on the count of penalty. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues: Challenge of redemption fine imposition and penalty imposition.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the appellant challenged the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that the redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000 was reduced to Rs. 80,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and should not have been imposed at all. Similarly, the appellant contested the penalty equal to duty of Rs. 1,19,541 imposed. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted without issuing a notice to enhance the penalty when the Revenue was not in appeal before him. It was emphasized that without an appeal or cross objection by the Revenue, a lower authority's relief to a party cannot be reversed by an appellate authority. The Tribunal found no material on record to support the enhancement of penalty. The Customs Act, 1962 provides wide latitude to Customs officers in penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any reason to discard the penalty imposed in adjudication, acting more like a revisionary authority. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000, the amount initially imposed in adjudication. Regarding the redemption fine, the Tribunal observed that there was no material from the appellant to suggest that it should not have been imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal did not find any reason to intervene in the quantum of the redemption fine determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's challenge on the redemption fine failed, but they succeeded in contesting the penalty imposition. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed, with the penalty being reduced to Rs. 50,000.
|
