9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 29-9-1999 disposed of 5 appeals filed before him by traders placed in similar circumstances. The Revenue have filed 5 appeals against this combined order. Since these two sets of appeals involve the same issue, we are taking up all these appeals together for disposal after hearing Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue and Dr. S.N. Kantawala, advocate for the respondents. 2.In disposing of the 16 appeals before him, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had placed reliance on the findings of the Tribunal as to the leviable quantum of fines and penalties attracted by similar engines. The Commissioner (Appeals) adopted the ratio of the judgments. He further observed that in two earliers orders, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be possible. We feel that the analysis made by us in regard to the first observation would adequately cover this point also. The next point raised by Shri Deepak Kumar was that the period relating to the present imports and those covered by the cited judgments of the Tribunal would be different. We find that the period covered in the case of M/s. Archana International (Order No. 3820/97 WZB, dated 22-9-1997) in Appeal No. C. 667/97-BOM. was ranging from October, 1997 to July, 1998. Therefore, the elements making for the determination of the quantum of fine as held in the cited judgment would apply. 4.Shri Deepak Kumar seeks to draw strength from paragraph 11 of the cited judgments of the Pioneer International (Order Nos. 3680-3681/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the quanta of fine determined by the Commissioner in this batch of appeals is the same as has been stated before us by the Commissioner in the present appeals. 6.We now come to the submissions made in the memorandum of appeals on which Shri Deepak Kumar had argued at length. It gives the arithmetical formula for determining the margin of profit which we find of no significance. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of South India Coir Mills (AIR 1976 SC 1527) is also cited in the appeal memorandum. It is the Appellant Commissioner's belief that this judgment lays down the law that it is not necessary that the reasons for arriving at a particular quantum of fine should be given in each case. On perusal we do not find any such l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
