9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in terms of the re-adjudication done by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The appellant had challenged the previous order passed by the Commissioner in order-in-original No. 79/97, dated 28-8-97. In the said order, the Commissioner had e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order. The Revenue has filed a ROM application which came up for consideration and as the said application had been filed belatedly and was hit by time-bar therefore the said ROM application was rejected. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants ld. Counsel submitted that there is no cause to impose penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for the reason that the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114A of the Customs Act. On re-adjudication the Commissioner has accepted the valuation of the appellants car and has dropped the proceedings. Therefore, it is not proper on his part to impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act as the said section was not involved in the previous proceedings and no penalty had been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act. The Tribunal had remanded the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
