9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f redemption fine. Since the cars were provisionally released to appellant herein, he is liable to pay the redemption fine. In the facts and circumstance of these cases, we find that redemption fine imposed is not excessive - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - C/1581 & 1582/2005 - A/85498-85499/17/CB - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Z.B. Nagarkar, Consultant for the appellant Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran: These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No: 87 89/2005/CAC/CC/PK dated 30/09/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. As both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of ₹ 3 Lakh, ₹ 2 Lakhs and ₹ 1 Lakh on Shri Aslam Khan, Shri Javed Desai and Shri Yanappa Venkateshara respectively under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs act 1962. 4.3. No penalty has been imposed on Shri. Sanjay Ghodawat, the Appellant which shows that the Department admits that he was not concerned in importation of the impugned goods. However, apart from fine of ₹ 3 Lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Sanjay Ghodawat, the Appellant, the differential duty of ₹ 4,92,020/- has been confirmed despite the fact that the Show Cause Notice does not demand duty from him. 4.4. Resort to provisions of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for demanding duty from a person othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962. While delivering the said judgment the Honorable High Court has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. Kochi 2000 (115) ELT 3 (SC). 5. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made, and perusal of records we find that the appellant is not disputing the facts that the imported cars are liable for confiscation. The said cars are liable for confiscation. I he said cars are imported by mis-declaring the year of make and manipulating the sales record. If the cars are liable for confiscation and held as confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
