9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry No. 959, dated 28-9-99 under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. However, he has given option to the appellant to redeem the same which is lying in the premises of M/s. Umayal and M/s. Senthamarai Printing Press on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1.50 lakhs, respectively under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He has imposed penalty for the violation of EXIM Policy, 1997-2002 and Customs Act, 1962 under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 to : (i) M/s. Saro Marketing, Rajapalayam Rs. 1.00 lakh (ii) Mr. B. Vivekanandan, Rs. 50,000/- 2. Both the appellants being aggrieved with the order have filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri A. Vijayaraghavan pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to by ld. Consultant. They sought for remand of the matter after allowing the stay applications on the same direction as given in the Final Order Nos. 2039 to 2057/2001, dated 21-12-2001 as in the case of V. Solomon Jayapandian and 18 Others v. CC, Trichy and Chennai. 5. On a careful consideration and on perusal of the impugned order and Final order referred to before us, we notice that the issue have already been dealt with by this Bench in the cited case. Therefore, we allow the stay application by granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay its recovery and the appeals are taken up for consideration. The finding recorded in Paras 13, 15 and 25 in the case of V. Solomon Jayapandian and 18 Others v. CC, Trichy and Chennai being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine of Rs. 25 lakhs against the confiscation of 389 numbers of machines valued at Rs. 2,93,74,056/- while he has given the option to redeem 71 nos. of machines seized, which had not been sold on payment of Rs. 3 lakhs. In a similar allegation of the main person having floated godowns i.e. R. Janardhanan, penalty imposed on him was only Rs. 10 lakhs, while against all the 23 persons in whose name the Bill of Entry were filed a nominal fee of only Rs. 5000/- imposed each. Ld. Counsel contended that there cannot be any discrimination in the matter and there has to be uniformity with regard to imposition of fine and penalties and therefore he prayed for remand of the matter so that appellants can reagitate the issue. In the case of Dynamics - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
