9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of redemption fine - Held that: - considering the fact that the value of confiscated goods found the redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000/-, seems to be excessive - in order to meet the ends of justice, the redemption fine imposed needs to be reduced, which is fixed at ₹ 75,000/-. Quantum of penalty - Held that: - the penalty u/s 114 of CA, 1962 is ₹ 50,000/-, which, in my considered view, is correct and no interference is called for - the first appellate authority reduced the penalty imposed u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962 from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- which also I find is correct. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/20207/2014 - A/31055/2017 - Dated:- 10-7-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority failed to appreciate the explanation of appellant that excesses and shortages had occurred on account of system deficiency of SAP system. (ii) Appellate authority failed to appreciate that while confiscating the duty paid seized goods, Revenue proceeded on presumption that in respect of excess stock at the DFS sale, vouchers were already prepared and issued and they had not appreciated the fact that there was no investigation by Customs in this case and there is no evidence in support of presumption, hence the proceedings have been dropped. (iii) Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that in the absence of evidence that the seized goods found were cleared for export therefore Section 113(k) of Customs Act, 1962 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case, the excess and shortage of goods at DFS and Customs Bonded Warehouse had been seized by the Customs officers of RGI airport on 28.06.2011. The appellant paid the Customs duty on the said goods on 10.09.2010. A show cause notice dated 23.12.2011 was issued to the appellant for proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 113 (k) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing of penalty under Section 114 and 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower authority vide impugned order confiscated the excess stock of goods at DFS and Customs Boded Warehouse and imposed penalty under section 114 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant submitted that the department has seized duty paid goods under section 113(k) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educed, which in my view if fixed at ₹ 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) from ₹ 1,50,000/- will be proportionate. 7. As regards the penalties imposed, I find that the penalty under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is ₹ 50,000/-, which, in my considered view, is correct and no interference is called for and I also find that the first appellate authority reduced the penalty imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- which also I find is correct. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the orders of the lower authorities in respect of the penalties imposed. 8. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is disposed of by modification as mentioned here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
