Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 555

ctly pointed out that multifunctional machines have copying facility are classifiable under CTH 84433100. In view of the observations from the appellant's own case decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as BE Office Automation Products Ltd Vs CCE Gurgaon [2013 (11) TMI 1032 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that in this case redemptpion fine & penalty imposed are excessive & are respectively reduced to 10% & 5% of the value assessed by the department. - Decided partly in favour of appellant. - Appeal No. C/233/2007 - Order No.FO/A/75377/2016 - 9-5-2016 - SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) AND SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Avijit Chakra .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s C.K Sharma & Corporation to be Digital Multifunctional Copier Machines. That no license is required to be procured for the second hand & used Digital Multifunctional Copiers as only ordinary second hand photocopiers need license. It was thus the case of the appellant that confiscation of photocopiers of CTH 84433930 under Sec-111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 was not justified. 2.2 That without prejudice if their argument on enhancement of value & confiscation of imported goods is not accepted then also the quantum of redemption fine & penalty is very high and the range of redemption fine & penalty in such imports should be 10% & 5% respectively of the value assessed by the departments. He relied upon the following ca .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

d hand photocopiers has been enhanced arbitrarily based on a Chartered Engineer s certificate. (b) That second hand goods imported by the appellant are Digital Multifunctional Copier Machines for which no import licence was required and that such restriction applied only to ordinary photocopies. (C) That otherwise also the quantum of redemption fine & penalty imposed is very high & should have been restricted to 10% & 5% respectively as has been held by courts in the other imports of the same appellant. 5. So for as arguments at Para- 4 (a) & (b) above are concerned it has been correctly pointed out by the Learned AR that multifunctional machines have copying facility are classifiable under CTH 84433100. Appellant has claime .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ly shown that there have been instances, where the Tribunal had considerably reduced the penalty. 18. Though it is true that no standard formula is possible but when facts of the case in hand are taken for evaluation, it is found that the Tribunal had side-tracked the issue only by taking into account the fact that the appellant had already got the goods released on payment of redemption fine, whereas it remains a fact that mere payment of redemption fine in no way dwarfs the right of the appellant to challenge not only confiscation but also imposition of redemption fine and final penalty. Even otherwise, to save cost of detention and demurrage as also to avoid further deterioration in value and quality of goods, making of payment of redemp .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||