TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f declaration of MRP brought Respondent to fold of law - Penalty imposed imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) has to send message to society that breach of law is mildly punished and such approach shall be bonus to evasion - Penalty enhanced to ₹ 1,00,000/- under section 112(a) looking to gravity of the matter - Decision made in case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Mansi Impex [2011 (8) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 was reduced to ₹ 25,000/- by the appellate authority for no reason. 2. The argument advanced by respondent is that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly calculated the redemption fine and penalty. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Prima facie, the argument of the respondent seems to be sound when para 7 of the appellate orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, no doubt there was violation of the prevailing law on MRP. Omission of declaration of MRP brought the respondent to the fold of law. Penalty being a preventive as well as curative measure of law, to prohibit and arrest lawlessness behaviour in the customs area, a token penalty of ₹ 25,000/- imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) has send message to the society that breach of law is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
