9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Cus., dated 8-7-1996 and the same had been confirmed by the Tribunal by rejecting the revenue s appeal in the case of H.M. Enterprises in Final Order Nos. 1600 to 1601/98, dated 25-8-1998. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow the Tribunal s order on the reasoning that the redemption fine had been reduced to 85% of the CIF value in those cited cases as there was demurrage and as there was no demurrage in the present case, hence the imposition of redemption fine at 100% depending upon the margin of profit earned on the import is justified. 2. The learned Advocate Sri K. Jayaraj points out that in the cited cases also there was no demurrage and the imports had been done during the same period and even in the cited case, the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as to why the fines have been hiked and whether it is on account of the market value being higher during the relevant period. The fine to be levied is on the basis of margin of profit. 5. The ground which has been extracted in the earlier portion of the judgment reveals that the department wants to have maintenance of the disparity. If the department wants to increase the redemption fine, there must be a supporting evidence which is revealed in the grounds of appeal and it is not at all revealed in the order-in-original passed by the Addl. Commissioner. No doubt the ground could be taken that show cause notice has been waived. But it does not mean that there could be arbitrary increase in the redemption fine. The basis of increase in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to be interpreted. The judgments of Higher Forums are precedence which are required to be followed and applied by all lower authorities. The non-following or non-analysing the judgment is a breach of discipline. The learned Advocate prays for allowing the appeal in terms of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE v. H.M. Enterprises cited supra. 3. The learned SDR points out that in the present case, there has been a higher margin of profit earned by the party and therefore, the Commissioner was justified in upholding the imposition of redemption fine at 100% of the CIF value. He points out that the Bill of Entry in the present case is dated 19-6-1996, whereas in the case of H.M. Enterprises the date of Bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
