9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal held that the value declared by the appellant has already been enhanced by the Revenue on the basis of the Chartered Engineers certificate. It is seen that there is no evidence brought out by the revenue to show that the appellants had paid more than what he had declared to the customs. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal took a view to impose fine and penalty at 10% and 5% in many of the cases cited by the appellant. As this Bench cannot deviate from the ratio of its own decision, we find that in all these cases the fine and penalty should be fixed only at 10% and 5% of the value of the imported goods determined by the Chartered Engineer, respectively. Also recently in M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al life of more than 5 years. The declared value of imported goods were ascertained by the Chartered Engineer. A copy of which was handed over to the appellant. Since the photocopier machines / Digital multifunction Print and copying machines are restricted for import and permitted only on authorization / licence issued by the DGFT. The importer was directed to place valid authorization from DGFT. As the appellant could not produce valid authorization, the transaction value was rejected and it was enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer s certificate. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence the present appeals. 3.1. Learned advocate for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Revenue viz. Unitech Enterprises Vs. CC, Chennai [2012(279) ELT 236 (Tri. Chennai)] which was upheld by the Hon ble Madras High Court as reported 2021(377) ELT 283 (Mad.)] is clearly distinguishable. In the order of the Hon ble Madras High Court, even though the Tribunal s finding was upheld on merit, no question of law was framed relating to fine and penalty; accordingly no observation has been recorded on this issue. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be applicable to the present case in deciding the quantum of fine and penalty. 4. Per contra, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). He has submitted that since the appellant had repeatedly imported the goods in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
