9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 dated 30-7-2007 Rs. 35,14,192/- Rs. 9 lakh Rs. 5.75 lakh 3. Riddhi Siddhi Enterprise C/675/2007 OIO No. 24/2007 dated 30-7-2007 Rs. 25,73,868/- Rs. 6.50 lakh Rs. 4 lakh 4. M/s. Office Devices C/676/2007 OIO No. 26/2007 dated 30-8-2007 Rs. 38,19,100/- Rs. 10 lakh Rs. 5 lakh In all these appeals the issue involved is one and the same, therefore, we are taking up all the four appeals for issuing a common order. 2. Shri N. Anand, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, Authorised Representative (JDR) for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. In all these cases, the appellant imported second hand photocopier and declared certain value and wanted to clear them on payment of duty. The Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Cochin - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 950 (Tri.- Bang.) (iv) Rajeswari Graphics v. CC - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 117 (Tri.-Bang.) (v) Rex Printing Press v. CC - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. The learned advocate raised several grounds while appealing against the imposition of harsh fine and penalty. The learned advocate did not challenge the confiscation of the impugned goods but they challenged only the quantum of imposition of redemption fine and penalty. It was urged that the redemption fine and penalty imposed are exorbitant. The actual price paid to the imported goods was much less than the value fixed by the Revenue on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the appellants are repeatedly importing the impugned goods, thereby committing violation of the EXIM Policy. When there is repeated violation, a uniform fine and penalty of 10% and 5% cannot be imposed. Therefore, he said that the Tribunal should in all fairness uphold the impugned order. 6. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the value declared by the appellant has already been enhanced by the Revenue on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate. It is seen that there is no evidence brought out by the revenue to show that the appellants had paid more than what he had declared to the customs. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal took a view to impose fine and penalty at 10% and 5% in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
