9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of goods, the excessive quantity has been dispatched. On perusal of the record, I find that the letter issued by the supplier is undated. Moreover, the supplier has issued two invoices by same number on the same date, i.e. invoice No. SPH046 dated 29.4.2013 for 25000 pcs as well as 50,000 pcs. In these circumstances, I hold that there was a mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants is 25,000 pcs. Instead of 50,000 pcs. found during the investigation. Thereafter the appellant submitted that supplier packing department dispatched 50,000 pcs against required 25,000 pcs by mistake. 3. In these circumstances, the adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation for mis-declaration of the quantity. Accordingly, imposing redemption fine and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no fault of the appellant, redemption fine is not imposable. 6. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that in this case, the quantity of the goods were found on examination to be highly excessive and therefore, goods are liable for confiscation, consequently redemption fine and penalty were imposed. 7. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 8. In this case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I hold that redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are excessively high. In these circumstances, I reduced the redemption fine to ₹ 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand only) and penalty to ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), 10. With these terms, appeal is disposed of. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
