Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1401 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 1401 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Confiscation of goods - Proper authorization for import of rough marble blocks not taken - Contravention of Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 read with Section 11(2) (V) of Custom Act, 1962 - Held that:- there are some contrary judgments, also as relied upon by the Revenue wherein this Tribunal without reducing the penalty upheld the fine and penalty confirmed by the lower authority. However we observed that the facts of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther Tribunal judgments. Therefore following the ratio of the Stoneman Marble Industries case we reduce redemption fine of ₹ 16 Lakhs to 20% of CIF value and penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs is reduced 5% of the CIF value. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. C/522/04 - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Anil Balani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Chatru Singh, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) ORD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 125 of Custom Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of Custom Act, 1962. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant imported Rough Marble Blocks and requested for first check examination of the goods and accordingly examination order of first check was given. The goods were examined and found to be rough marble blocks as declared in the Bill of Entry. The revenue in adjudication order contended that as per exim policy the import .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6 CIF which is below the contemporaneous import value of $ 310 per MT CIF. The adjudicating authority, in view of the above contention confiscated the goods and demanded redemption fine of ₹ 18 lacks and imposed penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs. Aggrieved by the adjudication order appellant is before us. 2. Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was general practice of import of rough marble blocks in all over the India by various importers. There was no intention to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble imports are more or less same therefore the ratio of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in the Stoneman Marble Industries case should be made applicable in the present case and he prays to reduce redemption fine to 20% of CIF value and penalty to 5% of CIF value. 3. On the other hand, Shri Chatrusingh, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that this Tribunal in various other cases maintained redempt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version