2010 (8) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imposable would be not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- if the value of the offending goods or the duty sought to be evaded does not exceed Rs. 5,000/- and if the value offending goods on the duty sought to be evaded is more than Rs. 5,000/-, the penalty imposable would be not exceeding value of the goods or the duty sought to be evaded - what is prescribed is the upper limit and not the minimum penalty - S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de order-in-appeal No. 06-09/CUS/MRT-II/2010 dated 15-2-2010 dismissed the Department's appeal. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Revenue has come in appeal. 1.1 None appeared for the respondent. Heard Shri A.K. Khanna, the learned Representative, who reiterated the grounds of appeal in the Department's appeal and also cited Tribunal's judgment in the case of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees), whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty (not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees), whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ught to be evaded. 2.3 Thus, in either case what is prescribed is the upper limit and not the minimum penalty. This is the view, which has been taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 348 (Tri.-LB) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 439 (T-LB), with regard to the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X