9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. [ 2001 (1) TMI 686 - CEGAT, KOLKATA ] when the goods are allowed to be re-exported, neither redemption fine nor duty was required to be paid. At the same time, penalty is also not to be imposed on the importers. The penalties imposed in these six appeals are not justified. All the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Anil Balani with Ms. Priyasha Pawar , Advocates for the Appellants Shri D. S. Mann, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Above stated six appeals are taken together for decision since they are arising out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. Appellant, Unitec Inc. was imposed with a penalty of total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in three orders-in-original put together. Appellant, Gulab Fibres, was imposed with a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. Appellant, Goyal Trading Co., was imposed with a penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- through two orders-in-original. Aggrieved by the said orders of the original authority, appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of six appeals through impugned order-in-appeal and rejected all the appeals and upheld orders passed by original authority. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough the final order in the above stated case of Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. For the sake of ready reference, paragraphs 5 6 of the said final order are reproduced below : - 5. We have heard the submissions made from both the sides. During the course of the arguments the ld. adv. appearing for the appellant made it clear that the appellants have opted for reexport of the goods. Accordingly they have challenged the order of the Commissioner imposing a redemption fine and penalty for the said re-export, which according to the appellants is not permissible to be imposed in view of the various case laws relied upon by them. It is seen that in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. CC - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.), their Lordships ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
