9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting aside the order for payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs but upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The prayer of Revenue in this appeal is to set aside this order and pass other orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: 3. The respondent imported marble/slabs whose import was restricted in terms of relevant EXIM Policy and a license was required to import them. In absence of the required license, the marble valued at Rs. 59,07,768/- could not be cleared even after expiry of the period of 30 days as stipulated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissionerate issued seven show cause notices on differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he upheld the confiscation of the goods he set aside the order of payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs and gave a further direction that sale proceeds should be paid to the respondent after deducting the penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs that was imposed on the respondent. Revenue filed this appeal assailing this order. 5. During the course of hearing of the appeal in Tribunal, the decision of the Tribunal in Collector of C. & CE, Chandigarh Vs. Essma Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. [1994 (74) ELT 588 (Tribunal] was relied on by the Department to contend that both the redemption fine and penalty have to be deducted from the sale proceeds. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in their own case in Orien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale proceeds would vest with the government. Penalty can still be imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act. An order for payment of all sale proceeds without deduction of redemption fine cannot, therefore, be issued." 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Larger Bench, the respondent filed Customs Appeal No. 45/2021 in the High Court which was decided on 12.9.2022 in favour of the assessee and setting aside the decision of the Larger Bench. Paragraphs 26 to 30 of this judgement are reproduced below: "26. The respondent/revenue, having sold the goods, which it could not have done, since the appeal was pending at the relevant time, we find that there is no good reason for adjustment of redemption fine. 27. For the foregoing reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
