9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02, dated 31-12-2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the fine to Rs. 2,50,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj, submits that there has been a great discrimination against them and in the process they could clear the goods almost after 7 months and have paid detention charges to the tune of Rs. 2,48,829/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 60,000/- and penalty was reduced to Rs. 6,000/-. In other words, in this case also ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine to about 10% of the CIF Value and reduced the penalty to 10% of the redemption fine. However, in their case for an identical goods where the value was arrived at Rs. 7,38,014/- (CIF). Ld. Commissioner has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs had to be paid by them, completely wiping out their margin of profit. Ld. Counsel submits that the redemption fine should be at least reduced to 10% of the value of the goods and the penalty to 10% of the redemption fine as was the treatment given to the similarly placed persons. However, the learned Counsel wanted further reduction since they do not have any profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) has reduced the fine and penalty to 10% on CIF value and penalty reduced to 10% on the redemption fine. She further submits that there is no discrimination as their case was decided first whereas the cases which are dated 30-4-2003 the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed consistent fine and penalty in both these cases decided on 30-4-2003. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
