9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order dated 27.12.2012, wherein the original authority had rejected the declared assessable value and re-determined the same at the higher value and also confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,03,000/-. Besides, the adjudication order has also imposed penalty on both the appellants under Section 114A ibid. 2. The appellants have assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is no mis-declaration with regard to value of the goods and as such, the goods in question cannot be confiscated under Section 111(m) ibid and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso appended to Section 114A ibid, considers for payment of 25% of determined amount of duty, in the eventuality where such duty is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. In the present case, payment of the disputed duty amount along with interest is not in question inasmuch as such amount was paid by the appellants during the course of investigation, and the same has also been appropriated in the adjudication order. Further, it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant M/s Zuari Structural Works & Engineers had not paid 25% of penalty within the period of 30 days from the date of communication of the adjudication order. In this context, the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has stated that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re also of the view that penal provisions contained in Section 114A ibid cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty on the appellant herein. Therefore, on this ground, the appeal filed by Shri Gurudas Kamat is allowed by setting aside the impugned order to this extent. 6. In the case in hand, with regard to confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine on the appellants are concerned, we find that the appellant herein is ahigh sea's purchaser of the goods and filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods from the customs custody. Since,all the related documents were submitted at the time of assessment of the goods in question, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 111(m) ibid have been contravened, inasmuch a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
