2007 (9) TMI 208 - HC - Customs

Tribunal noted that for import of similar goods around the similar time in other order of the Commissioner (A), the fine and penalty has been reduced - tribunal relied on the judgment, for reducing the penalty and fine - in our opinion, it cannot be said that no reasons were given by tribunal - consequently the questions of law as raised would not arise. Hence, appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quantum of fine and penalty.

Analysis:
The Tribunal's order noted that the challenge before them pertained to the excessive quantum of fine and penalty. The Tribunal observed that in a similar case involving import of goods around the same time, the fine and penalty were reduced based on another order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant sought rectification of the order, claiming that the details of the Commissioner (Appeals) order relied upon were not disclosed, leading to an apparent error. The tribunal, in response, provided the name of the party and the Appeal No. of the order in question.

The appellant contended that since the tribunal did not provide reasons for reducing the penalty and fine, the order should be set aside. Reference was made to a judgment of the court in a different case. However, the court noted that there was no assertion in the appeal memo that the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 27.4.2000 in the case of Devi Enterprises did not exist. Furthermore, there were no allegations that the facts and law in that case were different from the present case, justifying a different outcome.

The main argument raised by the appellant was that the order in the Devi Enterprises case was not applicable to the present situation. However, the court pointed out that the judgment from the Devi Enterprises case was neither presented nor distinguished on the basis of its inapplicability to the current case. The court emphasized that since the tribunal had relied on the judgment to reduce the penalty and fine, it could not be said that no reasons were provided. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the questions of law raised were not valid in this context.