9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty. - However, penalty imposed on the appellant is on the higher side. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of CC v. Dilip Ghelani – [2009 (2) TMI 681 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority reduced to 10% and 5% respectively - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.C/533/10-Mum - - - Dated:- 5-3-2014 - Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri N D George, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K S Mishra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for imposing redemption fine and penalty under Section 111(d) of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case the import took place in January 2005 when the Notification 31/2005 was not available. He further submits that the Notification is having a binding force but the Circulars and the clarification are not having binding force. In these circumstances, the lower authorities have rightly confiscated the goods imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Act and the redemption fine and penalty were also rightly confirmed. 6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. In the case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the goods were imported in January 2005 and the Notification 31/2005 came into existence only in 19th October 2005 which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, therefore, import of photocopying machines stand restricted only on and after 19.10.2005. In fact, if the argument of the Department is to be accepted, then there was no need to issue Notification no. 31 dated 19.10.2005. As per the Notification the appellant is required to obtain licence for the importation of the 2nd hand photocopier machines. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for holding that the impugned goods are restricted at the time of their import. Accordingly, I hold that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation which can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty. I also find that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant is on the higher side. Therefore, rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
