Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 10 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - validity of Compounding Order - demand of redemption fine or not - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, an appeal under Section 129A(3) was maintainable before the CESTAT, challenging a Compounding Order passed by the Compounding Authority? - HELD THAT:- The issue is answered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS GIRISH B. MISHRA [2013 (6) TMI 179 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that Appeal against any such order would lie before the Tribunal in terms of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act - We may clarify that although the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Girish B. Mishra is in connection with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, yet the provisions of customs are analogous to the provisions of the Act, 1944. The case is squarely applicable to the present facts. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the CESTAT was right in interpreting the Order in Original dated 31.03.2005 and coming to a conclusion that there was no demand of redemption fine? - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in so many words has observed that there was no clear proposal in the show-cause notice with regard to imposition of the redemption fine and also in the order-in-original. The tribunal has observed that there is no crystallized demand of redemption fine against each of the noticee. None of the questions of law as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial questions of law - appeal dismissed.
|