2014 (10) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. ORDER Heard the ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. None present for the assessee. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 5-11-2003 whereby he has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that while acting on the information that some importers of Chennai are importin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on against the respondents. Lower adjudicating authority adjudicated the case and confiscated the goods. However, he gave an option to the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 70,000/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents challenged the same before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who after fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... leared under DEEC Licence availing the benefit of Customs Notification and not paying customs duty on the goods. The proprietor of the respondents in his statement stated that the goods were purchased from various parties and from the statement the department could not bring out that he has admitted that the goods were illicitly imported. The Revenue also could not produce any evidence that the go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X