9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 20.11.2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 24.2.2009 except that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakh and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant imported old used CRT Colour Monitors which being old and used were not allowed to be imported w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa AIR 1970 Supreme Court 253. 4. When the case was called today there was no representation on behalf of the appellant nor was there any request for adjournment. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits. 5. In this case , we find that the appellant had voluntarily chosen to forgo the requirement of issuance of show cause notice and therefore the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the levels of primary adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, it is not open for it to contest the same at the level of the Tribunal as has been held by CESTAT in the case of Vikas Spinners vs. C.C., Lucknow 2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tri-Del.). Para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below being directly relevant to the present case: 7. In our view in the present appeal, the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking somersault and to deny the correctness of the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that the loaded value was accepted by them only for the purpose of clearance of the goods and that they reserved their right to challenge the same subsequently. They settled their duty liability once for all and paid the duty amount on the loaded value of the goods. The ratio of the law laid down by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
