TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hold that the ends of justice would be met if the quantum of redemption fine and penalty is reduced from the excessive rate at which it has been imposed to 20% each of redemption fine as well as penalty imposed vide the order in original - Following decision of M/s BE Office Automation Products Limited, Baddi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon [2013 (11) TMI 1032 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - CUSAP No. 24 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2014 - Rajive Bhalla And B. S. Walia,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate ORDER B. S. Walia, J. Vide this appeal u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs vide order in original dated 15.5.2008 (Annexure A-4). Aggrieved against the order passed by the respondent, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi- III, who vide order dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure A-5) reduced the amount of redemption fine from ₹ 8.5 lacs to ₹ 4.25 lacs and penalty from ₹ 17.00 lacs to ₹ 4.00 lacs. Aggrieved against the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (Annexure A-5), the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal for setting aside fine and penalty whereas the respondent filed an appeal seeking quashing of the order in appeal and for restoration of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed vide notification dated 05.06.2012 was not applicable. The Tribunal while relying on its earlier decision in the case of Unitech Enterprises(Supra) had totally ignored the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sai Graphic Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-import), 2013(289) ELT 423 (Mad.), wherein it had been held that digital multi functional print and copying machines fell under the category of restricted goods w.e.f. 5.6.2012 and that the restriction was operative prospectively only. Lastly, it was argued that without prejudice to the aforementioned submissions, fine and penalty equal to 100% of the value of the goods had been imposed, but the decision of the learned Tribunal as upheld by this Court as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine and in reducing the penalty amount from ₹ 17 lacs to ₹ 8.5 lacs only thereby imposing fine and penalty of ₹ 8.5 lacs each, that no justifiable reasons had been given in the order for imposing such a huge fine and penalty except that such a dose of redemption of fine and penalty would deter illegality being perpetuated. Learned counsel contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that old and used photocopiers were liable to confiscation still the quantum of redemption fine could have been equal to the margin of profit, which was very low in the present case as old and used photocopiers were freely available in the market and further that old and used photocopiers were normally purchased by small scale entrep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, the duty chargeable thereon. The language employed shall not exceed indicates that the authorities under Act are empowered to impose redemption fine less than the market price of the goods confiscated. Thus, a discretion is vested on the authorities with a rider that the imposition of redemption fine should not exceed the market price. 10. Likewise, under Section 112(a) also, the statutory prescription is in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under the Customs Act, or any other law the penalty imposable shall not exceed the value of the goods or ₹ 5,000/- which ever is greater. In respect of dutiable goods other than prohibited goods, the penalty could be imposed not exceeding the duty sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese appeals. Hence the appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2007 in C.N. A. No.127 to 130 of 2008 are also dismissed. This Court in Customs Appeal No.14 of 2011 (M/s BE Office Automation Products Limited, Baddi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon), decided on 18.11.2013, held as under:- 16. Counsel for the appellant has made reference to Selection Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2008 (232) E.L.T. Customs Appeal No.14 of 2011 -5- 755 (Tri. Bang), Rex Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata 2005 (184) E.L.T. 73 (Tri. Bang) and Bhavani Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2010 (262) E.L.T. 536. In the last case, it was or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
