9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Bill No.3473273, dated 26.08.2009 for export of 20,539.50 sq. ft. of goods declared as " Bufflight Burnish Upper Finished Leather" under claim for drawback. On examination, the Customs officers were of the view that 4803 sq. feet of the goods did not confirm to the description declared in the shipping bill. Here, it is relevant to note that there was export duty of 60% on unfinished leather an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d took back the entire consignment without exporting it, owing to mix-up that has happened at the time of packing. The Revenue was aggrieved that the penalty imposed on the appellant was very meager and, therefore, filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that under Section 114, there is no discretion for imposing penalty less than the duty amount sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong because Section 114 clearly sets out a maximum penalty that can be imposed under the said section and penalty is to be decided by the adjudicating officer considering the gravity of the offence. He relies on the decision of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs Sai Copiers reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T 486 (Mad) . He further points out that at the time of filing the appeal before the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leather only in terms of the Exemption Notification, which in turn, depends upon Public Notice No.3- ETC( PN)/92-97, dated 27.05.1992, issued by the DGFT. He further submits that the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the appellant is very low, considering the fact that the duty said to be evaded was Rs.1,58,413/-. 6. Considered the arguments from both sides. I do not agree with the arguments that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
