TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), claiming that the following question of law would emerge for determination of this Court :- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing deduction of Redemption Fine only and not the amount of duty, penalty and other charges in view of Sections 111 and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962?" 2. Brief facts may first be noticed. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue issued a notification bearing No. 258/90- Customs, dated 23-10-1990, whereby exemption of duty of custom was granted for a motor car when imported into India by an Indian repatriate from Iraq or Kuwait through land customs station at Attari, Amritsar (P-2). The respondent assessee, who was repatriated from I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e vehicle was registered in the name of the importer, namely, Shri Harinder Singh. The Tribunal rejected the certificate issued by the Indian Embassy in Baghdad on 8-1-1991, stating that the car was registered in someone else's name. The Tribunal further held that due consideration is required to be given to the scheme of notification dated 23-10-1990 (P-2), which was issued on humanitarian grounds. The Tribunal also ignored the opinion expressed by the Expert who opined that the model of the vehicle was 1990 and not 1988 as per the claim made by the assessee-respondent. The basis for ignoring the opinion of the Expert was that the Expert was never produced before the authorities and his testimony was not authenticated by cross-examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seizure memo i.e. Rs. 15 lacs by deducting the redemption fine of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from para 2 of the order, which reads as under :- "2. We have heard both sides. The appellant's contention is that he is entitled to the value of the car as shown in the seizure memo which is Rs. 15 lakhs after deduction of the redemption fine amount of Rs. 2.20 lakhs, in the light of Tribunal's order in Anil Kumar Jaiswal v. CC Patna - 2003 (58) RLT 1013 (T) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Shilp Implex v. Union of India 2001 (128) E.L.T. 54 (Del.) confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The submission of the appellant has great force in the light of case cited supra. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, placing reliance on some of the orders passed by the Tribunal, has not impressed us because the view taken by the Tribunal based on the decision of Delhi High Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We find no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is dismissed and the order of the Tribunal, dated 3-11-2004 (P-9) is upheld. We do not find that any question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court. As the operation of order dated 3-11-2004 was stayed by this Court on 27-1-2005, we direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
