TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Omex International Vs. commissioner of Cusoms, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. K. Naskar, AC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER PER P.K.CHOUDHARY : The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the Appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 2. In view of the reasons as explained in the Miscellaneous Applications, the delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Control restrictions and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act @ 25- 27% (approx.) and personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, 15 % (approx). 5. The order passed by the original adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the importer. The First A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts by such unscrupulous persons. 7. After hearing the Ld. AR for the revenue and on perusal of record, we find that the enhancement of value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement. There is no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
