9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order is erroneous. The original authority did not impose any penalty whereas learned Commissioner (Appeals) has enhanced penalty to Rs.8,40,467/- and such enhancement of penalty was done without following the procedure laid down in first proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 which requires learned Commissioner (Appeals) to put the appellant before him on notice and give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed order of enhancing penalty. The impugned order is not sustainable - the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh both the appeals filed by the appellant and Revenue by following the proper procedure - appeal is allowed by way of remand. - Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty @ 17.163% ad valorem. The Original Authority determined the assessable value to be Rs.8,40,467/- and determined customs duty of Rs.1,44,249/-. The Original Authority in the same order has set aside the duty demand of customs duty and interest thereon. The original authority further ordered confiscation of said gold and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.25,000/-. The original authority further directed that if the confiscated gold is to be redeemed, then along with redemption fine of Rs.25,000/-, customs duty of Rs.1,44,249/- has to be paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue also preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and agreed that procedure as provided in first proviso of sub-section(3) of Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions made. I find that the original authority has set aside customs duty demanded and therefore, there was no customs duty demand in the original order if the goods were not redeemed. The goods were not redeemed. Accordingly, there was no need for any pre-deposit by the appellant for filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, to that extent finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is erroneous. I, further, find that the original authority did not impose any p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
