9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty was arrived at since the appellants had brought in certain goods for repairs/re-conditioning under the provisions of Rule 173H, but had not removed the same within a period of six months as provided. The grounds taken in appeal are : - (a) The goods damaged in transit were returned to the factory for rectification of defect. D-3 intimations were filed. The def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the case law reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 346 (Tri.). This case law lays down that no limit of six months has been prescribed under the Rule. Therefore, the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,000/- reading it with Rule 210 was not called for. (e) They have also stated that they were not provided with the copy of the Trade Notice No. 25/93 dated 28-4-93. By this Trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... breach of Rule 173H inasmuch as the time limit prescribed by the Collector by the Trade Notice, has been violated, the penalty is justified. (b) I find that for the breach of the rules, the penalty is justified under Rule 210 when no other penalty was provided in the Rules in the Act. (c) It is also found that in this case, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or under Rule 210, need not be imposed since the power to impose penalty is not granted to the Revenue's officers as a whip to use whenever a transgression of the conditions of the rule occurs; penalties have to be imposed to achieve curative and demonstrative effects, and are not in the nature of retributions. The Criminal jurisprudence of an eye for an eye is not applicable. Thus, in the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
