TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty - HELD THAT:- 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 M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [ 2015 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] . The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laneous Application has been filed by the Appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. In view of the reasons as explained in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Miscellaneous Application (COD) is allowed. 3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) 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 Appellate Authority, by passing the impugned order, upheld the order of confiscation and enhancement of value. However, he reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed to 10% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 penalty, which stand reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 8. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
