Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (9) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt and used his discretion to reduce the redemption fines and penalties - The quantum of redemption fines and penalties sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be considered either to be excessive or on the lower side - no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) – decided in favor of revenue. - Appeal Nos. 158 to 160/2010 and 96 to 98/2010 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, advocate For the Respondent: Mrs Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT 1. The miscellaneous application Nos. 203, 204 and 205/2012 are by the appellant-parties seeking to file additional grounds and for amending the prayer and seeks to setting aside th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lue and paid duty. There is no dispute on this issue either before the original authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.2. The original authority confiscated the consignment and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties. 4.3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation and liability to pay the differential duty but reduced the redemption fines and penalties. The appellant-assessees are aggrieved against the sustained penalties and redemption fines. On the other hand, the department seeks enhancement of the redemption fine and penalties to the level fixed by the original authority. 5.1. Learned advocate appearing for the importers, relying on the decision of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hyderabad [2009 (237) E.L.T. 519 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 5.4. In addition, he submits that the Foreign Trade Policy for the year 2009 to March 2014 as applicable w.e.f. 05.06.2012 has specifically included photocopier machines/Digital Multifunction Print Copying Machines under the restricted category. As a result, for the earlier period such machines cannot be treated as restricted as the same cannot be given retrospective effect. 6.1. Learned DR strongly supports the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the confiscation and imposing penalties. It was contended that the importers have submitted to the jurisdiction of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals). Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities below, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he consignments should not have been subjected to adjudication and redemption fines and penalties should not have been imposed. On a close reading of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International, it is seen that the same related to old and used digital multi-functional copier machines. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the present cases. Undisputedly the impugned goods have already been disposed off and, therefore, the varacity of the claim that the photocopiers imported by them are identical to digital multifunction print and copier machines dealt with in the case of M/s. Shivam International case cannot be ascertained. The foundation for the claim that the consignments imported by them do not require .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orters, as an alternative, was seeking further reduction in redemption fines and penalties. He relied on several decisions of the Tribunal where in respect of import of photocopiers redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods imported have been sustained. The claim of the learned advocate is that in the case of Royal Traders, the appellant ascertained the profit margins to be 12.16% and the same has been duly noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) but yet he has sustained redemption fine of about 18% of the declared value which is not justified. He also said that higher redemption fines imposed on goods imported by M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation on the ground that they were repeatedly importing was also not justified. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates