9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved over some portion of the common order, the Commissioner of Customs/appellant herein, has filed the instant appeals, final order made in 1140 and 1141 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006, has been confirmed in entirety - appeal dismissed. - C.M.A. Nos.3496 and 3497 of 2017 C.M.P. Nos.22217 to 22219 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - S. Manikumar And R. Pongiappan, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda For Respondent : Mr.S.Murugappan JUDGMENT ( Delivered by S. Manikumar, J. ) Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against common final order made in Nos.A/1141/2006 and A/1140/2006 dated 30.11.2006 on the file of CESTAT, Chennai. 2. Short facts leading to the appeals are that M/s.Shri Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 20.05.1997 was issued. Following the procedure, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order holding that the respondent was guilty of mis-declaration and consequently, directed confiscation of 2275 MTs and scrap under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original dated 31.07.1997, permitted redemption of goods upon payment of fine of ₹ 20.00 Lakhs, in lieu of confiscation. In addition thereto, penalty of ₹ 2.00 Lakhs was imposed on the company and the Managing Director Mr.Ashok Saraf. 4. Being aggrieved, appeals were filed before the CESTAT, Chennai, which sustained the findings of the Commissioner, with regard to valuation, confiscation, redemption of fine and penalty. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court Interim Order dated 14.8.98. (4) The 2275 MTs of re-rollable scrap are confiscated under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. I maintain the imposition of Redemption Fine of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. (5) I also maintain penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each on Importer and Ashok Saraf MD of the company under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (6) I order encashment of Bank Guarantee available with group and adjust the same towards the above dues. 6. Being aggrieved, M/s.Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd, Chennai, filed Appeal Nos.C/533 534/2005 before CESTAT, Madras. After considering the rival submissions, CESTAT, Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ii. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner is within this scope of CESTAT Final order No.3259 to 3269 of 1997 dated 12.12.1997. 8. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, on the basis of a common order made in C.M.A. Nos.522 and 523 of 2007 dated 21.04.2017 filed by M/s.Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd, Chennai, Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, appellants in the instant appeals, submitted that when M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd, Chennai, respondents herein, filed civil miscellaneous appeals, against the directions contained in paragraph 9 of the common order made in Final Order Nos.1140-1141/2006 dated 30.11.2006 on the file of CESTAT, Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage. If this finding of fact is accepted, then the other aspects would logically fall in place. Other aspects, being with regard to the directions issued for confiscation, redemption upon payment of fine and penalty. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the approach adopted by the Tribunal via the impugned and judment order dated 30.11.2006. 9. Though Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel for the appellant, made submissions, in support of the substantial questions of law, finding of fact, confirmed by a coordinate bench in the case of the respondent, on the same set of facts, is binding on us. Though, being aggrieved over some portion of the common order, the Commissioner of Customs/appellant herein, has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
