9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ONAK, J.) Heard Ms. Asha Desai for the Appellant. 2. Ms. Dessai, states that the Respondent, in this Appeal, has been duly served and necessary affidavit of service is also filed. 3. On 22/09/2014, this Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (A) Whether CESTAT could reopen an appeal for hearing which was already finally disposed of by its own previous order ? (B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of M/s Archana International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in its Final Order No. 3820/97 WZB dt.22.9.97 held that fine of 100% of the assessable value will be appropriated in these cases. The Tribunal has also held that a penalty in these cases of about 10% of the value would be appropriate. The issue in these appeals is only in respect of the quantum of fine on the goods and penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raswati Repowering Works redemption fine fixed at Rs. 8,23,000/- and penalty at Rs. 82,000/-. (iv) In the case of M/s Mahakali International redemption fine is enhanced to Rs. 6,62,776/- and penalty to Rs. 66,000/-. The above fine and penalty have been determined on the basis of the enhanced assessable value of the consignments and in the light of the precedent decision of M/s. Archana Internati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, 2007. Hence, the present Appeal by the Appellant herein. 7. From the records, it is obvious that very taking up the Appeal No.C/841/1997 by the Tribunal on 19th April, 2007 was an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. Since the Appeal had already been disposed of by the order dated 10th July, 1998, there was really no occasion for taking up such appeal for reconsideration. It is obvious that suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said reasons, the substantial questions of law, as framed, are liable to be answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The impugned order dated 19th April, 2007 is, hereby, set aside and it is made clear that the earlier order dated 10th July, 1998 shall prevail. This shall, however, not preclude the Respondent from taking out appropriate proceedings against the order dated 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
