9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of Rs.2000/- was imposed on the respondent under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that penalty lower than the prescribed minimum of Rs.5000/- could not have been imposed on the respondent. 2. The respondent was apprehended carrying goods of foreign origin on 10.11.2003 at the railway station while coming out of the platform. The respondent could not produce any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the Revenue that penalty of less than of Rs.5000/- could not have been imposed in view of the minimum prescribed by the provisions of Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act. The learned authorized representative for the department relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Tribunal in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. CCE, Cochin, reported in 2005 (191) ELT 1128 in which it was held i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Rs.5000/- then the penalty imposed would be Rs.5000/- and if it was more than Rs.5000/-,then such greater amount would be imposed. It was, therefore, held that, penalty of Rs.5000/- prescribed in rule 173Q(1) would constitute minimum penalty required to be imposed in such cases. Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, provides that if any person who acquires possession of any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
