TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty Rs. 2000 is set aside - C/148/2007-SMB - 1561/2007-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 10-10-2007 - [Order per]- The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 15.11.2006 upholding the order of the adjudicating authority by which penalty 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 prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(b)(ii) of the Act. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.2000/- on the respondent, which was upheld by the Commissioner in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 3. In the present appeal, it has been contended on behalf 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause (b) or clause (bb) or clause (bbb) or clause (c) or clause (d) had been committed or Rs.5000/-, whichever is greater shall be imposed. It was observed that, where three times of the value of excisable goods was less than 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , could not have been less than Rs.5000/- which is the minimum penalty prescribed under the said provision. The impugned order to the extent it imposes penalty lower than Rs.5000/- is, therefore, set-aside and penalty of Rs.5000/- is imposed on the respondent under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. [Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
