9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)].- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order-in-original dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 14,35,518/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and further imposed penalty of Rs. 25,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the said notification was applicable, non-registration of the manufacturer of the goods with BIS was only a technical lapse for which the appellants could not be heavily penalised by imposing redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner deserves to be set aside, if not, modified in respect of imposition of redemption fine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t relevant at all for the applicability of the above said notification to their case. The relevant date was the date on which the bill of entry was submitted by them for clearance of the goods and on that date, the notification referred to above, was very much in force. The goods had been rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as the manufacturer admittedly was not registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
8. In view of the discussions made above, but for the reduction in the redemption fine from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing confiscation of the goods, imposing redemption fine and penalty is upheld. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in these terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
