TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 68, 69, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2015 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI N.W. SAMBRE, JJ. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Appellant. Mr. Vipin Jain a/w. Mr. Krishan Kumar and Mr. P.K. Shetty, Ms. Manya Bhardwaj, for Respondent Nos.1 2. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. Customs Appeal No.90 of 2014 is not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board. 2. Each of the Appeals of the Importers involve the questions common to the one already admitted by this Court being Customs Appeal (Lodging) No.33 of 2013. That is admitted on 26th September, 2013. Following that order, we admit all the Appeals of the Importers. They shall stand admitted on the similar questions as are to be found in the order of the Division Bench dated 26th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The Appeals of the Revenue are admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Customs Appeal No. 9 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the Customs Duty demand in respect of the vessel in question is not sustainable in law ? (b) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on J.M. Baxi Co. from ₹ 1,25,00,000/to ₹ 5,00,000/and setting aside the penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/imposed on Shri Vijayan Chrysostom D'Souza ? Customs Appeal No. 10 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the Customs Duty demand in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in question is not sustainable in law ? (b) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on J.M. Baxi Co. from ₹ 1,25,00,000/to ₹ 5,00,000/and setting aside the penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/imposed on Shri Vijayan Chrysostom D'souza ? Customs Appeal No. 22 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the Customs Duty demand in respect of the vessel in question is not sustainable in law ? (b) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on J.M. Baxi Co. from ₹ 1,75,00,000/to ₹ 5,00,000/and setting aside the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the duty paid on the vessel Smit Lumba would be available to Respondent No.1 under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 since the vessel had gone back after salvage operation within a period of 3 months from the date of its import? (b) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing the Redemption Fine imposed in lieu of confiscation on the vessel Smit Lumba under section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, from ₹ 3,00,00,000/to ₹ 50,00,000/? (c) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in deleting penalties imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 of ₹ 25,00,000/, ₹ 1,50,00,000/and ₹ 15,00,000/on Captain Kelath Devadas Senior Vice President, Off Shore Department of Shipping Corporation of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
