2011 (3) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the department, the challenge is against the acceptance of the declared value of the subject-goods as also against the reduction of quanta of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant is represented by the JDR. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request for adjournment.   2. After examining the records and hearing the learned JDR, we have not found any cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cks Examiners . Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter, having found no reliable basis for enhancement of the value of the goods, set it aside and accepted the declared value. Further, after considering evidence produced by the assessee regarding margin of profit , the appellate authority reduced the quant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proposal for enhancement of value is unacceptable. The view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the point appears to be reasonable. Consequently, the plea for enhancement of the fine and penalty also cannot be accepted, particularly where the appellant has not even attempted show that the lower quanta of fine and penalty determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not proportionate to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X