9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms - Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of declared value - confiscation - quantum of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- The enhancement of value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement. There is no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL) Shri S. K. Naskar, AC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER PER P.K.CHOUDHARY : The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the Appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 2. In view of the reasons as explained in the Miscellaneous Applications, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The Miscellaneous Applications (COD) are al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act @ 25- 27% (approx.) and personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, 15 % (approx). 5. The order passed by the original adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the importer. The First Appellate Authority, by passing the impugned order, upheld the order of confiscation and enhancement of value. However, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement. There is no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 8. On perusal of the impugned orders, we note that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
