Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2002 (1) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r : 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. 25,00....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

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 p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 w....