TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue has been admitted by this court. However, considering the fact that this court has found that a prima facie case has been made out and has admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law, this court is of the view that the confiscated goods are required to be released on appropriate terms and conditions. The interest of justice would be met if at this stage the applicants are directed to pay redemption fine of 10% of the value of the confiscated goods and 1% of the amount of penalty and further furnish bank guarantees of ₹ 50 lakhs each, which shall be kept alive till the final disposal of the appeal - application allowed. - In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1303 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2019 - MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed option of redeeming the same on payment of fine of ₹ 1,35,06,355/- i.e. equal to fifty percent of the value in terms of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also ordered confiscation of gold and studded jewellery valued at ₹ 3,20,96,437/- in terms of section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed option of redeeming such goods on payment of fine of ₹ 1,60,48,219/- i.e. equal to fifty percent of the value in terms of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned counsel for the applicants invited attention to the provisions of sub-sections (d), (e), (j) and (o) of section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as section 113(d) of that Act, to submit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Respondent had already paid the amount of duty involved along with interest and penalty and to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate, if the redemption fine is fixed at ₹ 40.00 lakhs. 5.1 It was pointed out that in that case, the value of goods was ₹ 6.75 crore whereas the redemption fine fixed by the Tribunal was ₹ 40 lakhs which would come to approximately 6% of the value of the confiscated goods, to submit that the redemption fine of 50% imposed in this case is not reasonable and is not in consonance with precedents. It was further pointed out that in the Tax Appeal No.62 of 2018 preferred by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal in the case of Dharmesh Pansuriya, this court has note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld by the Tribunal, whereas in the present case, a redemption fine of 50% of the value of goods has been imposed. This court while permitting release of confiscated goods in the case of Dharmesh Pansuriya, had directed him to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 1 crore. 8. In the present case, the total value of the confiscated goods is less than the value of confiscated goods in the case of Dharmesh Pansuriya. However, since in this case it is the applicants who are in appeal, at this stage they cannot claim complete parity with the case of Dharmesh Pansuriya. Besides, the case of Dharmesh Pansuriya has not attained finality as the appeal of the revenue has been admitted by this court. However, considering the fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
