9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l these four appeals by the Department are against the common order in appeal No. 69-72/CUS/APPL/LDH/2006 dated 29-12-2006 involving the same respondents. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents imported used photocopiers and filed bills of entry in July 2006 and August 2006, the photocopiers were subjected to examination on first check basis with the help of a Chartered Engineer and on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- 50000/- The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the confiscation of the old and used photocopiers but reduced the redemption fines and penalties as mentioned below : S. No. Order in original No. and date RF Imposed (Rs.) Penalty Imposed (Rs.) RF upheld (Rs.) Penalty upheld (Rs.) 1. 102/JC/CFS/LDH 06 dated 16-9-06 150000/- 100000/- 90000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes the finding and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. There is no dispute that the import of old and used photocopiers require a licence and having been imported without licence, the goods are liable for confiscation. The dispute relates to the quantum of redemption fines and penalties imposed. The Department wants restoration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignments estimated by the Chartered Engineer. Using his discretion, the Commissioner (Appeals), as appellate authority, while upholding the confiscation, reduced the redemption fine and penalty in each of the above cases. It cannot be said that the same was arbitrary. I hold that no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the quantum of redemption fine and penalty and to enhance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
