9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on 4-1-1991. Benefit was allowed to the appellant on execution of a bond/undertaking :- (i) To produce a CCP from the DGFT Authorities within 15 days. (ii) Not to sell, transfer or give on loan or in any other manner part with the car. (iii) To inform the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise & Customs having jurisdiction over the place at which he is residing and was taking the car to. 2. In terms of the aforesaid bond, the appellant informed the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur, about his residential address and the place to which he was taking the car. It appears that the applied for obtaining the CCP to the DGFT Authorities on 17-1-1992 but the said authorities informed the appellant in February 1993 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amritsar. 6. On adjudication the Addl. Collector, Amritsar has confiscated the car for contravention of the Section 111(d) for non-production of CCP and also on account of parting with the car, thereby violating a post condition attracting confiscation under Section 111(o) . The car has been confiscated by the adjudicating authority with an option to the appellant to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/-. He has also imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on Chandu Lal Jain with whom the car has been found at the time of the visit of the officer by Jaipur Commissionerate. Benefit of notification was also denied by the adjudicating authority for violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g it up. This action of Chandu Lal Jain will not in any manner amount to parting with the car on the part of the appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat. This finding is also fortified by the lower appellate authority's findings of setting aside the penalty on Chandu Lal Jain as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate Shri K.K. Anand for the appellant Sh. Bharat Kumar Rajawat. We are therefore of the view that the benefit of Notification No. 258/90-Cus. cannot be retrenched since all conditions thereof are fully satisfied. Therefore the demand of duty on the car cannot be sustained. 9. Learned Advocate Shri K.K. Anand however has fairly conceded that the appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat could not produce the CCP and therefore it could possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity's decision regarding setting aside of penalty on Chandu Lal Jain is correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are also of the opinion, in view of the aforesaid finding regarding the benefit of notification not liable to be denied to Bharat Kumar Rajawat and the circumstances in which the CCP could not be produced as set out above that penalty and fine imposed on Bharat Kumar are on the higher side. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case we reduce redemption fine from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- and also reduce the penalty on appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. 12. In short, following orders are passed : (i) Appeal of Revenue against Chandu Lal Jain is rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
