9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal, however, waived off the penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act and reduced the quantum of redemption fine from ₹ 3,00,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal had taken a lenient view and it would not give any substantive right to the appellant to get the redemption fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- set aside on the ground that once penalty has been waived, no redemption fine could be sustained especially when the appellant had violated the provisions of the licencing note. - No question of law arises - Decided against assessee. - CUSAP No. 1 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir Malhotra, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Sunish Bin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant imported 112.355 MT of Secondary Defective HR Steel Strip, Coils vide invoice dated 20.8.2012 (Annexure A-1) of M/s Overseas Distributors Inc., USA for the use in manufacture of final products in their factory premises. The assessee filed an application dated 11.10.2012 for procurement and movements of the goods without payment of duty under notification dated 31.3.2003. The Superintendent, Central Excise Range-V, Jalandhar issued certificate dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure A-2) that it was for clearance of goods through ICD/PSEC/GRFL, Ludhiana imported against invoice dated 20.8.2012 (Annexure A-1). The assessing being 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal had recorded that as per the provisions of the licensing notes, the secondary/defective HR Coils could be imported only at the ports of Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkatta. The import of goods at ICD, Ludhiana by the assessee was contrary to the licencing note No.4 of Chapter 72 of the ITC (HS) as there was restriction about the port at which the goods could be imported and, therefore, the goods had been rightly confiscated. The Tribunal, however, waived off the penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act and reduced the quantum of redemption fine from ₹ 3,00,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal had taken a lenient view and it would not give any substantive right to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
