TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962. The Learned Commissioner erred in holding that no redemption fine could be levied as the goods were not physically available. The goods were provisionally released in terms of a bond submitted by the importers - redemption fine upheld, but the quantum is reduced. The impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing penalty from ₹ 80,00,000/- to ₹ 38,00,000/- - Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. 362 & 392 of 2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20349-20350/2020 - Dated:- 3-6-2020 - HON BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Jitendra Motwani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. Chandramohan, Commissioner (AR) ORDER M/s Libert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 (177) ELT 960 (Tri. Mum.) P.T. Impex, 2015 (321) ELT 38 (P H) and 2014 (302) ELT 154 (Tri. Del.) Shri Shakti Iron Steel Rerolling Mill Vs CC, Kandla, 20054 (304) ELT 279 (Tri. Ahmd.) 3. Commissioner, Authorized Representative argued at length touching several issues involved in the case. He argues that the observation, of the High Court in the Viraj Impex case that irrevocable letter of credit was not established by the petitioners but that by itself cannot be a ground to say that concluded contract which was entered into by the petitioners was not a genuine contract, is not ratio decidendi as there is a statutory requirement by the Notification and the Notification was not set aside. He relies upon the observation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ports like Goa, JNPT, Mumbai and Kandla. Therefore, Learned Commissioner argues that the ratio of the Hon ble High Court decision in Viraz Impex is not applicable. Moreover, the instant case is after the pronouncement of the case under a different Notification and different set of circumstances. He submits that the law should be purposively and strictly construed as held by the Apex Court in the following cases: Mafatlal Industries Vs UOI, 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) State of Jharkhand Vs Ambay Cement (2005) 1 SCC 368 Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. V CTO, Calcutta, (1965) 3 SCR 626 He submits that as there is no confusion in Notification No. 39 (RE-2007)/2004-09 dated 16.10.2007 and as the importer did not open an irrev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t penalty and fine that may be adjusted in lieu of the confiscation of said goods mentioned in the schedule for importation of goods. Relying upon the following case laws, learned Commissioner submits that the adjudicating authority erred in finding that as the goods were not physically available, no redemption fine could be levied: Weston Components Ltd. Vs CC, 2000 (115) ELT 278 (SC). CCE Vs Raja Impex, 2009 (229) ELT 185 Shiv Kripa Ispat P Ltd. Vs CCE, 2009 (235) ELT 623 (T-LB) CCE Vs Mithran, 2017 (347) ELT 603f (HC-DB, MADRAS) CCE Vs Shilpa Trading Company, 2014 (309) ELT 641 (HC-DB,Kar) CCE Vs Kay Bee Tax Spin Ltd., 2017 (349) ELT 451 (HC-DB, Guj.) 5. On hearing rival contentions, we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
