9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- which was not challenged by the appellant and the same has become final and therefore in the De novo proceedings, imposition of penalty of ₹ 2,10,000/- is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed in part. - C/294/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21194/2019 - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. G. Shanmugam, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commr. (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24/11/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner and after considering the submissions made by the appellant, the Commissioner passed De novo adjudication order whereby Commissioner has allowed the redemption of the gold on payment of fine of ₹ 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs only) under Section 125 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing the redemption fine of ₹ 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of ₹ 2,10,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b. Krishna Kumari Vs. CC, Chennai Final Order No. 303/2008 dated 01/04/2008 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and relied upon the decision in the case of CC, Mumbai Vs. Mansi Impex 2011 (270) E.L.T. 631 (S.C). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case the appellant has only challenged the imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs only) on the ground that the same is excessive. Further we find that originally when the gold was seized, it was valued at ₹ 30,20,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) but in the De novo proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
