9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to increase the amount of fine, penalty, etc., in appeal filed by the assessee/importer. Thus by virtue of the order of this Tribunal reducing both the quantum of fine and penalty, the appellant cannot be put to more disadvantageous position as they have already re-exported the goods, on the date of the final order. The appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 1,00,000/- being the excess penalty paid, as the amount of penalty is reduced by this Tribunal - Accordingly the adjudicating authority is directed to grant the refund of ₹ 1,00,000/- with interest as per rules - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/88529/2018 - Final Order No. A/86276/2019-WZB - Dated:- 9-5-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Sm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty, gave no objection to re-export the goods covered under the Bill of Entry No. 2904709, dated 7-3-2011. 3. Thereafter the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against imposition of the said penalty and the said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by Order-in-Appeal dated 9-10-2012. Being aggrieved the appellant further filed appeal before this Tribunal being Appeal No. C/85111/13 which was disposed of by Final Order No. A/1499/14/SMB/C-IV, dated 12-11-2014 whereby this Tribunal allowing the appeal partially, modified and reduced the amount of redemption fine from ₹ 4,00,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/- and penalty from ₹ 1,50,000/-, was reduced to ₹ 50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly rightly understood by the Assistant Commissioner at the ICD who allowed the re-export of goods, taking notice of the payment of penalty. The appellant had filed the appeal for waiver/reduction of the penalty, however it appeared, by mistake in the appeal memo they mentioned the amount of penalty in the column for fine. The Learned Counsel said that for such clerical error the appellant cannot be put to more disadvantageous position than he was. Further there was no appeal by Revenue against the order-in-original dated 21-4-2011. Further the modification in the amount of redemption fine and penalty does not put this appellant in a more disadvantageous position and accordingly it is evident that they are entitled to benefit of reduced p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
