TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce given by the importer for such enhancement. There is no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. In view of the reasons as explained in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Miscellaneous Application (COD) is allowed. 3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, I observe that the present issue involved in this appeal, lies in a narrow comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the original adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the importer. The First 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 8. On perusal of the impugned order, I 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
