9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Revenue the mastermind of the conspiracy to import computer was M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited. This as the contract between M/s. Packard Bell Limited and M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited was negotiated and finalised before the Respondent came into the picture. Therefore the impugned order in the overall facts and circumstances of the case reduced the penalty from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of four Respondents namely M/s.Advance Technology Devices, M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Mr.C.K.Bajpai and Mr.C.Dilip Kumar both employees of Crompton Greaves Limited. 3. Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue on instructions states that this Appeal is only restricted to the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to Advance Technology Devices. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancing the quantum of penalty vide appeal No.C/ 400/1996-Bom.? 6. The Tribunal by the common impugned order disposed of appeals filed by the Revenue as well as those filed by the Respondent-Assessee from order dated 1 August 1995. The order dated 1 August 1995 of the Commissioner of Customs had confiscated 107 computer systems imported by the Respondent under Bill of Entry No. 12286 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D have not disputed that what was imported by them were complete computer systems, and therefore the only prayer before us is for leniency in the quantum of fine and penalty. On the other hand the Revenue seeks enhancement of the penalty imposed on ATD . On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue as well as Assessee the Tribunal came to the conclusion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educed the penalty from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 2.50 lakhs. In these facts the view taken by the Tribunal is a very possible view and cannot be said to be perverse. 10. In the above view the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 11. However, before closing we may point out that the order dated 26 May 2004 is being exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
