9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against order in appeal No. KOL/CUS/CKP/21/2012 Dated- 14.02.2012 whereby Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appeal of the appellant filed against Refund Order No. Kol/Cus/2382/2011-12 dated 01.12.2011. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim for refund of Redemption find and pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f redemption fine and penalty. Therefore, they have not followed the Tribunal s decision. In support of their contention they have placed reliance on Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Onkar S. Kanwar (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 591 wherein it was held that wherever two views are possible then one which is in favour of the assessee must be adopted. 5. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. This Tribunal vide order dated 28/01/2008 has ordered as under: We are of the view that the Policy provision is very clear and the appellants have violated the same in respect of several importations. As such, the impugned goods are clearly liable for confiscation and the appellants are liable for penal action. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has ordered for redemption fine and penalty of 10% and 5% of assessed value. We do not find any room for any interpretation that it does not relate to assessable value of the goods. The re-working of the redemption fine and penalty has been done as under: The appellant are not contesting for re-working of redemption fine and penalty relating to Sl. No. 1 to 6. We find that from Sl. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
