9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant have voluntarily updated the adjudicating authority about the said issue. Taking the said facts into consideration we are of the view that the Appellant is a bonafide as they have not suppressed facts relevant in the present case. We also find that in the present case the appellant suffered heavy demurrage due to which the profit of the appellant has also wiped off. Thus, we are of the view that appellant deserve the leniency with regard to quantum of redemption fine and penalty. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine and penalty in the matter of Appeal No. C/10327/16 to Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively and in Appeal No. C/10623/16 to Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively. The impugned orders are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 1962. That aggrieved by the same the Appellant preferred an appeal along with Stay application for release of goods before this Tribunal. That the Stay was allowed vide order No. S/1368/WZB/AHD/07 dated 29.11.2007 with the direction to deposit Rs. 25 Lakhs and 20 Lakhs respectively in both the matters and to furnish ITC bond for the balance amount of redemption fine which the Appellant fulfilled, whereafter the matter was remanded to decide the case afresh vide Order in Appeal No. A/10912/2015. Subsequent to the Tribunal s order, de novo Orders-in-original were passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence the present appeals. 2. Shri Stebin Mathew, learned Counsel Ms. Dishya Pandey learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on:- Sophisticated Marbles Granite Industries v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai 2004 (165) ELT 353(T) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v Sagar Enterprises 2011 (264) ELT 101 (T) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v Vaibhav Exports 2009 (244) ELT 527 (Bom) 3. Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) on behalf of the department has reiterated findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered submissions made by both the sides and perused their records. We find the Appellants plea is that there be reduction in redemption fine and penalty. We observe that the order was placed by the Appellant during the validity of their license wherein out of the total shipments in dispute, Bill of lading bearing No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
