9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chartered Engineer, there was escalation in the redemption fine and penalty imposed. Thus, the Tribunal has given its own reasons in the matter of fixing a rate at which the fine should be imposed. The penalty imposed by the lower authorities which is 5% of the value of the imported goods as has been certified by the Chartered Engineer is upheld and the redemption fine is to be calculated and collected to the extent of 15% of the value as has been certified by the Chartered Engineer in all these cases. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/479-499/2009 - Final Order Nos. 1253-1273/2009 - Dated:- 24-9-2009 - Shri M.V. Ravindran and P. Karthikeyan, JJ. Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Raja Ram, DR, for the Respondent. This order disposes the following appeals : Sl. No. Appeal No. Name of the Party Order in Appeal No. Duty (Rs.) Fine (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1 C/479/09 Bhavani Enterprises 49/09 3,92,034 6,87,000 1,00,000 2 C/480/09 Bhavani Enterprises 42/09 2,02,444 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals submitted the invoice copies and all other documents in respect of the declared value. The Adjudicating Authority did not accept the value as declared by the appellants and subjected the goods for Chartered Engineer s inspection and for valuation. The Chartered Engineer appointed by the revenue appraised the subject goods and gave certificate regarding the value of the goods. Importers accepted the said value of the goods and discharged the duty liability. The Adjudicating Authority passed an adjudication order and confirmed the enhancement of the value and held that the goods are liable for confiscation. Coming to such a conclusion, imposed the redemption fine and penalty in all these cases. 3. Appellants aggrieved by such an order, preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not in accordance with the law as has been laid down by this Bench of the Tribunal and sought the reduction in the redemption fine. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that imposition of fine and penalty is correct and upheld the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned SDR as regards the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the each case separately is correct proposition of law. But, in all these cases, we find that the goods imported were old/used Photo Copiers and Computers. The country of origin, the Model No. etc. is of no consequence, as the goods which were imported and cleared are old and used computers is accepted by the revenue in the Order-in-Original. If that be so, the facts are not different, as the fact in all these cases, is that there is only import of old and used Photo Copiers and Computers. Hence, we are of the considered view that all these cases need to be disposed of by a common order, considering the fact that there is only import of old , and used Photo Copiers. We find from the records that the Adjudicating Authority while imposing the penalty in all these cases on the appellants has more or less imposed a penalty of 5% of the value of the goods as has been certified by the Chartered Engineer. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) order to the extent it holds imposition of penalty on the appellants is in accordance with the law as has been settled by this Bench and upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Kerala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the armchair of the Appellate Authority, however, cannot be substituted. 9. In this regard, we may refer to certain case law cited by both sides. A Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sai Copiers [2008 (226) E.L.T. 486 (Mad.)] had occasion to consider a similar case where the Tribunal had reduced the amount of penalty and redemption fine to 5% end 15% respectively of the value of the goods. It was held thus : The statutory requirement is that the imposition of redemption fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods, the duty chargeable thereon. The language employed shall not exceed indicates that the authorities under Act are empowered to impose redemption fine less than the market price of goods. Likewise under Section 112(a), the maximum penalty that could be levied is only prescribed, and there is no statutory prescription that the penalty should not be reduced by appellate authority. That was also a case where the Tribunal had in fact followed the earlier order of the Tribunal wherein the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of second-hand ph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
