9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, upheld confiscation of Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap as same was found un-declared and was also mis-declared in respect of values – Thus, no reasons were found to interfere with well-reasoned decision of Commissioner – Imposition of penalty under Section 112 is also justified under circumstances – Thus appeal partly allowed – Decided partly in favour of Appellant. - Appeal No. C/13005,13402/2014 - Order No. A/11241-11242/2015 - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - Hon ble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical), J. For the Petitioner : Shri Sarju Mehta, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.M. Saleem These appeals are filed by the Assessee and by the Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seized goods and got the goods released. 2.4 The Adjudicating authority had vide his impugned order confiscated the quantity 30.880 MT of Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap and also confiscated the quantity of 294.095 MT of HMS and imposed fine of ₹ 2,50,000/- and ₹ 4,00,000/- respectively, confirmed the differential Customs duty of ₹ 2,56,008/-. The Adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Appellant. Also, penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Appellant. 3. The Appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against the said Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phold the order of imposing penalty on the Appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that penalty imposed on the Appellant in respect of the quantity of 30.880 MT of as Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap Tense does not commensurate with the contravention. The penalty imposed on the Appellant under Section 112 (a) is very harsh and higher side. I, therefore, reduce the penalty to ₹ 50,000/- with consequential relief to the Appellant, if any. 4. Aggrieved by the said OIA, the Appellants are before us. Revenue is also before us praying for restoration of the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. The main contentions of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reason to interfere with the well reasoned decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 is also justified under the circumstances. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the following case laws:- i) CCE Delhi-III, Gurgaon Vs Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan 2006 (206) ELT 325 (Tri-Del) ii) DCW Ltd Vs CC, Tricy 2004 (176) ELT 113 (Tri-Che.) iii) CC (Prev.) Mumbai Vs Shri Ganesh Enterprises 2006 (199) ELT 208 (Bom.) 8.1 The issues concerned in this appeal are dependent on the facts of the case. It is observed that the facts in the cases cited supra are not identical with the facts of the present case. 9. In view of the above analysis, both the appeals, filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
