9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Pvt. Ltd. seeks to rectify error apparent from the records contained in the Final Order Nos. 276 277/2009 dated 9-3-2009 of the Tribunal partially allowing the appeal filed by the CHA for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Vide Order-in-Appeal No. 72/2008/Cus. (B) dated 29-5-2008, the lower app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the question of law raised in the supplementary affidavit. The appellant relies on a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. CC (Import), Nhava Sheva [2007 (213) E.L.T. 340 (Tri.-Mum.)] wherein relying on judgments of Hon ble High Court of Kolkata and Hon ble High Court of Gujarat, the Tribunal allowed a ROM petition on the ground that the final order involved h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been exported as is the case of Revenue, there can be no question of penalty for having rendered non existing goods liable to confiscation, even if penalty was found applicable under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962. The appeal of the present applicant is, therefore to be allowed to the extent of the penalty imposed on him under the provision of Section 114(i). 3. This application points out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing confiscation of export goods is found in the impugned order. 4. In view of the above finding, allowing this ROM application, will necessarily entail a change in the order of the Tribunal. The order cannot be maintained with a finding that the appellant was not found guilty of having rendered export goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. In the light of the observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
