9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Pandey , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Tara Prakash , Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR 1. The Appellant M/s Kargwal Enterprises is engaged in the import of rough limestone blocks and marble blocks. The present appeals are directed against Orders - In - Original which are impugned herein, passed by the adjudicating authority ordering confiscation of goods unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. That aggrieved by the same the Appellant preferred an appeal along with Stay application for release of goods before this Tribunal. That the Stay was allowed vide order No. S/1368/WZB/AHD/07 dated 29.11.2007 with the direction to deposit Rs. 25 Lakhs and 20 Lakhs respectively in both the matters and to furnish ITC bond for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t evidenced by the certification of their chartered accountants whereas the department has projected a profit of 55% without providing any cogent and detailed working. He takes the support of Impact Systems Inc v Commissioner of Customs 2008 (228) ELT 604 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has decided that where market enquiries have not been conducted by the adjudicating authority a reduction in redemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65) ELT 353(T) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v Sagar Enterprises 2011 (264) ELT 101 (T) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v Vaibhav Exports 2009 (244) ELT 527 (Bom) 3. Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) on behalf of the department has reiterated findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered submissions made by both the sides and perused their records. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso wiped off. Based on the facts and circumstances in the current case, we are of the view that appellant deserve the leniency with regard to quantum of redemption fine and penalty. 5. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine and penalty in the matter of Appeal No. C/10327/16 to Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively and in Appeal No. C/10623/16 to Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
