2005 (10) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. All these four appeals arise from a common OIO No. 09/2003 dated 6-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Tirupathi. The appellants are all dealers who have been alleged to have received the goods without payment of duty. The goods have all been seized and granted redemption .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alue of goods seized from M/s. Nandini Enterprises of Rs. 7,327/- and the penalty imposed is Rs. 10 lakhs. It is submitted that no goods were seized from the premises of Shri G. Surendra Babu, Agent of M/s. ANL Parcel Services, yet the Commissioner had imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 209A. He prayed for setting aside the penalties. 2. The learned SDR could not justify the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espectively. The quasi judicial authority is required to apply his mind free from bias and prejudice. He should appreciate the arguments and submissions made by the parties and use the discretion in a proper manner as is acceptable in law. The manner in which the Commissioner has imposed RF and penalty is unjust and improper. The appellants cannot take a plea that the goods were duty free. It was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X