TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not physically available for confiscation – impugned order passed by the Commissioner is legal and proper and does not warrant any review on the issue raised by the Revenue - C/1052/2007 - A/409/2008-WZB/C-I/(SMB), - Dated:- 25-4-2008 - Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (T) Shri P.K. Katiyar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order] - Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose redemption fine, if any irregularity is noticed later on. The Revenue has also observed that hi the case of Venus Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 661 (Tri,-Chennai), it has been held by the Tribunal that "We cannot accept the contention of the appellants that no fine can be imposed in respect of goods which are already cleared. Once the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons (i) While imposing penalty of Rs. Five lakhs on the respondents, the Commissioner has kept in mind that no redemption fine is imposable on the respondents, as the goods are not physically available for confiscation. Thus the penalty element indirectly takes care of the redemption fine, which would have been imposable, had the goods been available for confiscation. (ii) The plea of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt does not arise. In a nutshell, the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal's finding that the fine can be imposed even if the goods are not available for confiscation has been upheld by the Madras High Court and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court is not borne out from the facts on record. (iii) I further note that the Tribunal Chennai's Order in the case of M/s. Venus Enterprises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case laws which hold likewise: (a) Vikas Chandra v. CC, Chennai reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 316 (Tri.-Chennai); (b) Prudential Pharmaceuticals Ltd v, CC, Chennai reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1057 (Tri.-Chennai); (c) Ramkhazana Electronics v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, Jaipur reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 122 (Tri.-Delhi). 4. In the light of the above discussions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
