TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is clearly beyond the control of Appellant. As regard redemption fine and Penalty i.e. ₹ 50,000/- & ₹ 5000/- respectively there is no reason to change this position as issue of redemption fine and Penalty was not challenged by the revenue against first adjudication order. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/892/2009 - A/86486/2018 - Dated:- 23-5-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S.P. Mathew, Advocate for Appellant Shri Trupti Chavan, Asstt.Commr. (A.R) for respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The facts of the case are that the appellant vide Bill of Entry No. A1770 dt. 27.03.1990 cleared the imported Medical Equipment namely viz. Gama Camera under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -II dt. 30.04.2008 was passed wherein it was observed that since CDEC is withdrawn benefit of Notification No. 64/88 is not available and remanded back the case to the Commissioner to examine the eligibility of alternate Notification No. 65/88 and to pass the order as per law. The Tribunal dismissed Rectification of Mistake Application vide Order No. M/56/09/CSTB/C-II/WZB/09 dt. 27.01.2009. The appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 11528/2009 before the Hon ble Supreme Court, meanwhile the impugned Order CCMJ/ 22/2009/Adj.ACC dt. 27.06.2009 came to be passed whereby Ld. Commissioner extended the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-CUS and reduced the demand to ₹ 11,70,997/- and same was demanded under section 125 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the alternate Notification No. 65/88. Therefore fine and penalty did not attain finality. In any case the Adjudicating Authority in impugned order could not have enhanced Redemption Fine and Penalty particularly when the earlier order was not challenged by the revenue. 4. Ms. Trupti Chavan, Ld. Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of revenue reiterates the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submission made by both sides and on perusal of records, we find that firstly if at all there is any violation of condition of Notification No. 64/88, it is not intentional as due to fire gama camera got damaged and thus condition could not be complied with, this is clearly beyond the control of Appellant. Secondly as regard red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
