TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as determined in proceedings under section 28 - The importer in the present matter has been identified in the impugned order as ‘noticee’ and has been fastened with differential duty on the enhanced value. Doubtlessly, it is the same entity that is liable to be penalised. There is no requirement for a specific mention of the importer to validate the penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical) Shri V R Reddy, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the appellant None for the respondents Order Revenue has filed appeal against order-in-original no. 08/2005-AP.COMMISSIONER dated 30 th May 2005 of Commissioner of Customs, Goa which has rejected the declared value, resorted to enhancement of assessable value, confirmed differential duty of ₹ 23,69,634/- with interest the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of penalty under section 112 in lieu of redemption fine, has authorized this appeal against the impugned order seeking remand to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of these points. 3. None appeared for respondent. Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the contents of the appeal. 4. There is no doubt that the impugned order has merely imposed penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 114A, the penalty of ₹ 23,70,000/- is without reference to any provision, let alone section 112 as presumed by the appellant. Even if such penalty was imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so. In these circumstances, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
