TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/- have been confiscated and allowed on redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 20 lakhs and penalty has been imposed. 2. Heard Shri S. Murugappan, ld. Advocate for appellants who submits that in view of numerous treatises available, Cassia can also be used as a crude drug in the preparation and manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines. Therefore, the order imugned has erred in holding it exclusively to be consumer product and needing an import licence. In this connection, he cites The Treatise on Indian Medicinal Plants - Volume-I of 1991. He also submits that as per IS:4811 of 1968, there is some laid down specification for Cinnamon, Whole wherein it has been held that it is one of the costly spices and is also used for preparing indigenous m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the best of his knowledge, the margin of profit during the period was only about 25%. He cites the case of CC v. U. Jugraj as in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 705 (T) wherein the Tribunal had held that ascertainment of profit margin on the goods and discussing it clearly in the order is a pre-requisite before determining the quantum of fine. A similar decision was contained in the Tribunal decision in Shah Trading Co. as in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 165 (T) wherein the order was set aside and remanded for fresh determination of the redemption fine. 4. Ld. DR Shri S. Sudarsan, on the other hand, cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Universal Enterprises v. CC as in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 159 wherein the Tribunal had considered Cassia imported without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis but should be calculated and discussed in the order-in-original. Such a discussion should refer to the landed cost of the goods vis-a-vis market price during that period and thus arriving at the margin of profit. Ld. Advocate submits that margin of profit was about 25% during that period. He submits that appellants have got some data to prove this. As against this, the order impugned has not discussed as to why it has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs which is about 100% of the enhanced value. Therefore, the order impugned is a non-speaking order. Though the matter is old, the Tribunal is not expected to do the original work relating to the calculation of margin of profit etc. 6. Therefore, in view of above position, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
