2017 (11) TMI 1046

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that: - When the adjudicating authority is empowered to impose lesser penalty than the maximum provided it cannot be said that the Tribunal is not vested with the same power. The Tribunal having exercised the above discretion for the reasons recorded which do not appear to be arbitrary or whimsical, in any way, the said discretion is not liable to be interfered with and the Tribunal was justified .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e value of the goods confiscated. 4. The sole substantial question of law which has been raised in this appeal is :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Section-114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) when the suppression by the appellant has been established during adjudication .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... um penalty. 6. Section 114(iii) of the Act whereunder the penalty was imposed, provides for the imposition of penalty not exceeding the value of the goods. The use of the phrase not exceeding the value of the goods denotes that the maximum penalty which could be imposed in the aforesaid provision shall not exceed the value of the goods and that the authority in its discretion can impose les .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X