TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority. The order of the confiscation of goods and imposing redemption fine of ₹ 65,00,000/- is against the directions of the order of this Tribunal, dated 03.09.2007 - the redemption fine imposed on the appellant by way of impugned order is set aside - appeal disposed off. - Customs Appeal No. 2 of 2009 - A/30688/2020 - Dated:- 11-2-2020 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the appellant. Shri L.V. Rao, Additional Commissioner/AR for the respondent ORDER PER: MR. ASHOK JINDAL 1. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the matter was remanded by the Bench on 03.09.2007 to the adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal ordered remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority on the ground that if the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988 but the case of the appellant is to be considered for availment of benefit of exemption Notification No. 65/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988, where the effective rate of duty is 40% and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. In remand proceedings, as directed by this Tribunal, the duty liability was computed in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988, which provides 40% effective rate of duty and redemption fine to ₹ 65.00 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant. The appellant aggrieved from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988. As the said order has reached its finality, therefore, the adjudicating authority has no option to go beyond the direction of this Tribunal while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, we hold that the order of the confiscation of goods and imposing redemption fine of ₹ 65,00,000/- is against the directions of the order of this Tribunal, dated 03.09.2007. 7. In view of the discussions, we set aside the redemption fine imposed on the appellant by way of impugned order and rest of the order is upheld. 8. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
