TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isted for admission of appeal filed by revenue. The issue involved is whether penalty is imposable on respondents M/s. Timetech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as they had imported goods without specific import licence. 2. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned JDR, submitted that the respondents had imported one Oakwood Laminator which was classified by them under Heading 84.65 of the Customs Tariff Act. On exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector of Customs reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) in which it was held that the question of mens rea is not relevant for quantum of liability of penalty under Section 112 of the Act. 3. After considering the submissions of the learned DR, I observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the penalty had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Akbar Badrud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machine is classifiable under Heading 8479.89. The Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the facts of the matter came to the conclusion that the goods have become liable to confiscation as a result of difference of opinion about the classification between the importer and the department and no penalty is imposable. The department has not made out any case for imposition of penalty and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
