9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri A Jain, DR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs imposed upon the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant is manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board. As waste paper is one of the raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs upon the appellant. The said order of the Additional Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 3. The appellants contention is that they had ordered for import of waste paper and there is no evidence on record that toxic plastic content found in the consignment were sent by the expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no malafide intention, there is no reason as to why the supplier passed the toxic waste of plastic along with waste paper. 6. We find no merit in the above observation of the Commissioner (Appeals). Merely because there was a checking clause by quality surveyor, the same does not lead to indicate any malafide on the part of the importer. Further, we have to keep in mind that quality inspection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
