9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after rejecting the stay application filed by the appellant (department), we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The respondents had imported a consignment of electronic goods and filed a Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the misdeclaration of description of the goods had a bearing on the value of the goods, it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept the transaction value declared by the party. With regard to redemption fine, it is submitted that the fine was vacated for want of margin of profit. Margin of profit being an element to be reckoned in the determination of the value of the goods, ld. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. The lower appellate authority has sustained the penalty on them, which also has been accepted. Revenue is in appeal against the decision of the lower appellate authority with regard to the value of the goods as also to its redeemability on payment of fine. We find that this challenge has force. 4. It was held by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) thus : It is lucidly evident from these facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which would enter into reckoning in the context of determination of market value and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vacating the redemption fine for want of margin of profit cannot be sustained. However, the impugned order as regards penalty will be sustained for want of challenge by the assessee. 6. In the result, we set aside the impugned order except in relation to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
