9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : SANJIV SRIVASTAVA Appeal by Revenue is directed against the Order-in- Original No.109/200 dated 19.8.2009 of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. Vide the said order, the Commissioner has held as follows: "In view of the discussion above, I hold that the goods covered under 69 shipping bills totally valued at Rs. 14,05,53,828/- (FOB) liable for confiscation under Section 113(h)(i) and (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 114 should follow. Since Commissioner has not imposed any penalty under Section 114, the order of the Commissioner is erroneous and needs to be set aside to that extent. 2.3 None appeared for the respondents. 3.1 We have considered the submissions made in appeal and during the course of hearing. 3.2 Specifically during the course of argument, query was raised to the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made against the respondents as reproduced in Order-in-Original clearly shows that there was no proposal made for penalty under Section 114. Since no penalty was proposed under Section 114, Commissioner could not have imposed penalty under that Section. 3.4 In the appeal memo filed by the Revenue, no ground substantiating the imposition of penalty under Section 114 has been put forth. The grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
