9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed off/sold and not available for confiscation - Held that: - the goods on which the Revenue has sought imposition of redemption fine were cleared and disposed of by the appellant. The said goods are not available for confiscation. The said goods were also not seized and released under any bond or undertaking. In these circumstances, the same cannot be confiscated and therefore, no redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of material which was already disposed off/sold and not available for confiscation. Revenue has also filed appeal on the ground that penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh imposed on the importer in a case involved willful mis-declaration and suppression of facts, resulting in duty evasion in excess of ₹ 36 lakhs is too low. In the review order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1962 appears to be too low. 2. It is noticed that the Revenue on the above grounds of appeal has also filed appeal against the following persons also. i) Shri Suresh Sharma ii) Shri R Rajamanickam iii) Shri Anil P. Saraogi iv) Shri Eknath Thube v) Shri Rakesh R Vakharia vi) Shri Jignesh R Vakharia vii) Shri B.T Sanbandam viii) Shri Rajeev Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed appeal against M/s. S.B. Impex and so many other parties. It is noticed that the review order challenges only for non-imposition of redemption fine and the quantum of penalty on M/s. S.B. Impex only. There are no grounds in respect of other parties. In these circumstances, the appeals relating to the parties, other than S.B. Impex, are filed without authority and are dismissed as such. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
