9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal filed by the Department is against the appellate Commissioner's order reducing the quanta of fine and penalty, as against the respondent, to Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.35,000/- respectively. The original authority had imposed a fine of Rs.4.95 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of the goods imported by them and seized by the Department, after recording a finding that the respondent had rendered the goods li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant grounds. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the appellate Commissioner's order, referring to the averments contained in the cross-objection filed by the respondent. We have perused the so-called cross-objection which contains the respondent's counter to the Department's appeal. 2. On a close perusal of the impugned order, we note that the learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the text of the Tribunals Final Order cited by the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) and it is found that the Revenues prayer for enhancing the quantum of fine to its original level was rejected by the Tribunal while their challenge against reduction of penalty by the lower appellate authority was accepted. The relevant part of the Tribunal's order is reproduced below:- 2. I have heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the respondents. They had submitted that the value of the offending goods was Rs. 2,90,000/- and that the original authority had taken into account the entire value of the two consignments covered by the Bills of Entry which was Rs. 5,43,170/-. I find that even considering the value of the entire goods imported, the fine of Rs. 75,000/- imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reasonable. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
