9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ihir Mekal i/b M/s. ALMT Legal, for Respondent No.2. P.C. : This Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act) challenges the order dated 26 May 2004 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). 2. The present Appeal filed by the Revenue is in respect of four Respondents namely M/s.Advance Technology Devices, M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Mr.C.K.Bajpai and Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Technology Devices. 5. The Revenue has urged the following question of law : 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal, is right in allowing the appeal of the Respondents and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue for enhancing the quantum of penalty vide appeal No.C/ 400/1996-Bom.?' 6. The Tribunal by the common impugned order disposed of appeals filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal considered both the appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the Respondent together as is evident from the impugned order itself which refers the same in para 9 thereof as under :- 'M/s ATD have not disputed that what was imported by them were complete computer systems, and therefore the only prayer before us is for leniency in the quantum of fine and penalty. On the other hand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves Limited was negotiated and finalised before the Respondent came into the picture. Therefore the impugned order in the overall facts and circumstances of the case reduced the penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. In these facts the view taken by the Tribunal is a very possible view and cannot be said to be perverse. 10. In the above view the question as proposed does not give rise to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
