9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of appellant No. 1 and Rs. 6.75 lakhs in respect of another appellant before him were considered, the margin of profit would further go down to 60%. Therefore, he held that following the case of M/s. General Traders of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 1199/96 and C/697/96, reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- in the present appellant before us and ordered the level of redemption fine to 75% adopted by the Tribunal in the cases relied by him. 2. The Revenue has challenged this reduction of redemption fine to 75% as unwarranted and have made a plea that it should be 292% and submit that the reduction by the Commissioner (Appeals) of the redemption fine is purely disproportionate when compared to the magnitude of the offence. The ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the case of General Traders is applicable for the commodity cassia and not Poppy seeds and therefore margin of profit of another commodity cannot be applied for determining the margin of profit in the case of poppy seeds of Pakistani origin. He further reiterated the grounds taken in appeal and submitted that the order should be set aside and the Additional Commissioner s order restored. 4. Ld. Advocate Shri A.K. Jayaraj submits that for the subject period of imports in this case, i.e. 1996 from the same Tuticorin port, there are a number of orders from this Tribunal wherein redemption fine on similar imports of poppy seeds have been determined as 85% of the CIF value which has now been accepted to be the redemption fine impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into India without licences. We also observe that the Tribunal has in many other orders, given redemption fine to 85% of the CIF value. We find no reason to interfere with the 75% redemption fine arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case on the grounds made out in the appeal memo. We, therefore, find no reason to uphold the Revenue s appeal. 6. Since there is no appeal against the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed, we find that no order is required to be passed on the adequacy or otherwise of the penalty imposed in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. We find that once the Commissioner (Appeals) order is being accepted as regards the imposition of penalty to be proper and just not appealed, there is no reason to consider t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
