9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Nilotpal Chowdhury , Advocate for the Appellant Shri J. Chattopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER ORDER : [PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL] The appellants were intercepted on 17th March, 2015 by the officers of Balurghat Customs Preventive Unit while they were moving towards Sotpur bus stand when allegedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants were imposed, of Rs. 25 lakhs each, under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Against the said order, the appellants are seeking a reduction in penalty. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants are not contesting the merits of the case and are only seeking reduction of penalty in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Sunny Kakkar v. Principal Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.), New Delhi [Final Order No. 50108 of 2023 dated 06.02.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 52094 of 2018 - CESTAT, New Delhi] iv. Nidhi Kapoor v. Principal Commissioner and Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of India & ors. [W.P.(C) 8902/2021 & anor vide decided on 21st August, 2023 - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] (followed by the Hon'ble High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olute confiscation of the goods, therefore, relying on the said decision, we hold that penalties imposed on the appellant cannot be equated with the case of Gopal Shah (Supra). 7. We find that the penalties are imposable on the appellants but the same are on higher side, therefore we reduce the penalties imposed on the appellant to Rs.10, 00,000/- (Ten Lacs only) each. 8. Accordingly, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
