2020 (5) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... O, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER PER P.K.CHOUDHARY : When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, we observe that the present issue involved in this appeal, lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today itself with the consent of Ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irst 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% and 5% respectively. Revenue has challenged this order by filing the present appeals with the prayer that the order of the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) reducing redemption fine and personal penalty, merits review. 4. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r (Appeals). 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we note 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 Omex International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2015 (328) ELT 579 (Tri.-Del.). The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X