2019 (6) TMI 1609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. In view of the reasons as explained in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Miscellaneous Application (COD) is allowed. 3. When the matter was called, none appeared on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 25- 26% and personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, varying from 10% to 11%. 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, he reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed to 10 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y 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 order, I note that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X