9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 15.00 lacs does not appear to have been confirmed in the above paras whereas the Hon ble Member (J) though agrees with Hon ble Member (J) but has added that the Redemption fine becomes payable only when the goods are redeemed. Thus, there is a contradiction in the findings recorded by the Hon ble Members (J) and (T) as Redemption fine is not payable as per the order of Member (J) whereas the question of payment of redemption fine would arise when the goods are redeemed as per Hon ble Member (T) s order and as the Dept. may say that since the goods are confiscated in the order of Commissioner the Redemption fine would be payable while redeeming the goods. B. The Hon ble Tribunal in Para 5 of the order has recorded in detail the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reting the Hon ble Supreme Court s order as levying penalty would mean addition of word fine and penalty in addition to the word duty , the applicant s counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd. reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) where Hon ble Supreme Court had specifically confirmed the penalty levied. C. This Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Busa Overseas Properties Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (I) Mumbai reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 328 (Tri. - Bom.) has held that certain important submissions which have a direct bearing on the issues under consideration have not been considered by the Tribunal and these are errors apparent from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Choice Apparel v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 252 (Tri.- Bang.) has held that this Hon ble Tribunal can give a direction to the Revenue not to take coercive steps till the ROM is disposed of. 4. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the Revenue has reiterated the said order passed by the Tribunal and inter alia submitted that the same is correct and needs no interference. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we direct the parties to maintain status quo in the matter. Thus, the stay petition stands disposed off accordingly. As regards the ROM application, the same is fixed for final hearing on 12-5-2006. Notice may be issued. (Pronounced in Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
