9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the samples do not satisfy the norms as there was absence of protective coating - Held that:- Only in a few items the defect of not having protective coating was detected. The appellant has sought return of the goods for reprocessing the same for the purpose of exporting. It is explained by the appellant that the defect occurred due to mistake at the end of the job worker. The appellant ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upper leather . The goods were examined and samples were drawn from two packages out of 24 packages to ascertain whether the goods were finished leather or not. Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai gave report that the samples do not satisfy the norms as there was absence of protective coating. The appellant submitted that on few finished leather, there were thin protective coating and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se goods and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 85,000/- besides penalty of ₹ 8,500/-. The department filed appeal against the reduced penalty and in appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced the penalty to ₹ 3,74,786/-. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Anees Ahamed, Manager Export appeared and argued the matter. He stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore the goods were taken back by the appellant for reprocessing which only establishes that they had no intention to evade any duty. 3. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to Section 114 and submitted that the penalty has been rightly enhanced by the Commissioner (Appeals), as there was mis-declaration of goods. The appellant was trying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The appellant cannot shift the blame on the job worker. However, taking note of the entire facts presented before us, we are of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty of ₹ 3,74,786/- is on the higher side. The appellant has also submitted that he is facing financial difficulty and prayed for lenient view. We therefore reduce the penalty to ₹ 8,500/- (Rupees eight tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
