2016 (6) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent : Sh. K. Poddar,  DR ORDER Appellants submits that for no reasons of any mis-declaration or conscious involved the appellant should not be penalised and redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/-  and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh as has been levied by the ld. Commissioner (A) are liable to be set-aside. 2.  Briefly placing the background of the case, ld. Counsel says that when the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1962.  3.  Revenue says that there is justification for imposition of redemption  fine and penalty. 4.  Heard both sides and perused the records. 5.  It may be stated that redemption fine is a penalty which is action in rem.  When the offending goods itself submitted to the mis-declaration of the description and  quantity, that ipso-facto invites penal consequ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... interference.  8.  In the result, the order of Commissioner is modified to the extent indicated above, reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 2,00,000/-,  upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  9.  The order above has been passed keeping in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of  CC, Mumbai, Mansi Impex  2011 (270) ELT 631 (SC).
Case law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X