2008 (2) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Old and Used Assorted Color Monitors - Revenue appeals are against OIA by which the Commissioner has fixed the Redemption Fine & Penalty at 10% and 5% respectively on the Transaction Value in the light of similar appeal disposed by the Tribunal in the case of Rex Printing Pres s since goods were similar, ratio of Tribunal decision was rightly applied by commissioner revenue appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
- Uniformity in fixing Redemption Fine and Penalty
- Requirement of market value for Redemption Fine
- Application of Tribunal rulings on similar cases

Issue 1: Uniformity in fixing Redemption Fine and Penalty
The judgment involved two Revenue appeals against Orders-in-Appeal fixing Redemption Fine (RF) and Penalty at 10% and 5% respectively on the Transaction Value. The Revenue argued for separate RF based on the margin of profit, contending against uniformity in fixing RF and penalty. The imported goods were confirmed as old and used, subject to confiscation and penalty due to lack of specific import license. The original authority's determination of RF and penalty was supported, while the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing it to 10% and 5% was challenged.

Issue 2: Requirement of market value for Redemption Fine
The learned DR cited the Tribunal's ruling in Jagson International Ltd. case, emphasizing the need to ascertain market value for fixing Redemption Fine. Reference was also made to a Mumbai High Court ruling and a Delhi High Court judgment, highlighting the dependency of Redemption Fine and Penalty on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for following the ratio of the Tribunal ruling in Rex Printing, which was deemed incorrect.

Issue 3: Application of Tribunal rulings on similar cases
The learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal consistently fixed Redemption Fine and Penalty at 10% and 5% of Transaction Value for second-hand imported goods of like nature, including old and used computer monitors. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in applying the ratio of those rulings, especially when the goods were similar to those in previous cases. The acceptance of earlier Tribunal rulings on identical matters supported the application of the same RF and penalty percentages in this case.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to reduce the Redemption Fine and Penalty based on the application of previous Tribunal rulings on similar cases involving old and used goods. The rejection of the Revenue appeals was justified by the consistency in fixing RF and penalty percentages for comparable imported items, as established by earlier judgments and the acceptance of the Tribunal's decisions on identical matters.