9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r import of lamination cores (parts of transformer under RITC No. 85049010). On examination of the consignment on first check, it was prima facie found that goods appeared to be CRGO sheets and to ascertain the exact nature of composition of the goods, the matter was referred to expert opinion of Chartered Engineer. The Chartered Engineer submitted his report stating that the said steel strips can be utilised for making transformers cores after carrying appropriate sizing and reconditioning on them. On the basis of the report of the Chartered Engineer, it was alleged that appellant has mis-declared the goods and to mis-clasified the goods and also under valued the goods. In that circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in this case goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Act. The said provision are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation, consequently, the penalty sought to be imposed under Section 112 (a) (i) of the Act is not imposable as the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. 4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides, I find that it is the case of mis-declaration of classification and consequently, it was held that goods has been under valued. As per report of the Chartered Engineer, a report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. vs. Collector reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.) has observed that in the case of re-export, redemption fine is not leviable. Admittedly, in this case goods were allowed to be re-exported by the appellant, in that situation, relying on the decision of Seimens Ltd. (supra), the redemption fine is not imposable on the appellant. Therefore, redemption fine imposed on the appellant is set aside. 11. With regard to the penalty, provision of the Section 112 (a) has been invoked which provides that if any goods which is prohibited goods, in that case penalty is imposable. Admittedly, the goods in question are not prohibited goods, therefore, provision of Section 112 (a) (i) of the Act are not applicable to the facts in this case. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
