9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n almost similar issue and after considering several judicial pronouncements has found it proper to delete penalty imposed for violations of regulation in 10 (d) and 10 (e). Thus, I deem it proper to delete the penalty imposed on the appellant and therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant : Shri M. Harri Viswanaath, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harendra Singh Pal , Assistant Commissioner , A. R. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Customs Broker Appellant against the Order in Original No. TUT-CUSTM-PRV-COM07/2023, dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. 2. Shri M. Harri Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , both written as well as verbal, of the appellant, has found that the appellant had indeed violated Regulations 10(d) 10 (e) ibid but, however, he having considered the fact that the appellant did not gain any benefit, chose to impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under regulation 18 (1) ibid. It is against this order and the penalty that the present appeal has been filed before this Forum. 5. The Ld. Advocate would submit at the outset that in a more or less similar case, this very Chennai Bench as in the case of M/s. Max Miller Agencies, Tuticorin Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vide Final Order No.40099/2024, dated 30.01.2024 deleted similar penalty imposed on the customs broker. 6. Per contra, Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officers were well aware of the classification and they allowed the said classification without any objection. The respondent did not raise any objection to the adopted classification even though the description of the export goods was correctly declared. Further, I find that it is not only the appellant who has followed this classification with regard to impugned goods rather other exporters were also adopting the same classification which was followed at Tuticorin port during the period from April 2015 to October 2020. Further, I find that even DGFT authorities who are in charge of the Foreign Trade Policy have also allowed the MEIS benefits which also proves that there was nothing wrong in the classification of the impugned goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent consignment would also be of non-texturised variety. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the Appellants have deliberately mis-declared the goods with a view to avail the benefit of lesser rate of duty. Consequently, confiscation and redemption fine as well penalty is set aside 9. Similarly in the case of CCE Visakhapatnam Vs Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. reported in 2004 (167) ELT 225 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal held in para-3 as under : 3. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The learned Counsel representing the assessee submits that the issue is no more res integra. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of S. Narendra Kumar Co. v. CCE, Mumbai-II - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 1001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
