TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, in the facts and circumstances, that the goods were not prohibited goods, it is found that the fine and penalty are on the higher side. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified - Redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh - Penalty under Section 114(iii) is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. 51768 of 2021 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 50021/2023 - Dated:- 10-1-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Vaibhav Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant Cipra Enterprise is in appeal, against the order of confiscation of the goods and penalty imposed under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill and permission for export, without benefit of MEIS. 2.3 In the Order-in-Original, the Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellant had deliberately mentioned the country of origin of the goods as India in the export documents and thus the Appellant had made false declaration to Customs with an intention to claim export incentives under MEIS, which was not admissible to them. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original (i) disallowed the MEIS benefit amounting to Rs. 76,444/- claimed by the Appellant on the goods; (ii) ordered confiscation of the goods having FOB value Rs. 25,50,422/- under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also the packing material under Section 118(b) of the Act, with an option to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rydertrac Exports [1999 (111) ELT 394 (Tri).] (iv) Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa [1972 (83) ITR 26 (SC)] (v) Akbar Badruddin Jiwani V. Collector of Customs [1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC)] (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa [1978 (2) J159 (SC)] 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that it is not in dispute that the goods are not of Indian origin and hence, the appellant was not entitled to claim the benefit of MEIS. Thus, the goods were found to be mis-declared as the appellant had declared the goods to be of the Indian origin. Learned Commissioner also pleased to set aside the penalty under Section 114AA of the Act but confirmed the penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Act as well as the redemption fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
