9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power, as the option which was extended to him for payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation should have exercised by him when the order-in-original was passed. Also the law is very clear that the redemption fine has to be paid by the applicant in lieu of confiscation as the applicant is still using the vessel and in possession of the said vessel. Therefore, this is not a fit case for us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said vessel by furnishing a bond along with the bank guarantee. Subsequent to the investigation, show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. CCP/ADH/PD/01/2011 dated 14/03/2011 imposed a penalty of ₹ 50 lakhs on the appellant and confiscated the vessel with option to redee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding and the imposition of penalty is still disputed, the redemption fine being duly secured by way of bond and bank guarantee, Revenue be restrained from encashing the bank guarantee. 3. We have heard the learned departmental representative. 4. On perusal of the records we find that, at this juncture, we are not in a position to pass any order retaining Revenue from encashment of the bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscated. It is a common sense that when any goods are seized by the Revenue authorities, the goods are to be produced at the time of adjudication for either confiscation or otherwise. In the case in hand, the law is very clear that the redemption fine has to be paid by the applicant in lieu of confiscation as the applicant is still using the vessel and in possession of the said vessel. This is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
