Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mr. Shahul Hameed vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 1 February, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Application No. C/S/01/10 & C/EH/88/10 in Appeal No. C/1044/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 388(Gr.VB)/2009 (JNCH)/IMP-36 dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Mr. Shahul Hameed Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance:
Shri Abdul Rehman Power of Attorney Holder for Appellant Shri B.P. Pareira JDR for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 01.02.2010 Date of Decision: 01.02.2010 ORDER NO. WZB/MUM/2010 Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal along with stay application and a miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal against the impugned order, wherein a redemption fine of Rs.35,000/- and a penalty of Rs.15,000/- were confirmed against the appellant.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a Bill of Entry for import of Chrysler Town and Country Minivan Model-LX by claiming Transfer of Residence (T/R) facility, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that as per the condition No. 3(11) of the Licensing Note to Chapter 87 of ITC (HSN) Policy, only one vehicle is allowed to be imported under T/R. As the importer has already imported one Suzuki Motorcycle under T/R facility, the adjudicating authority has held that the appellant was not eligible for T/R facility. A redemption fine of Rs.75,000/- and a penalty of Rs.25,000/- were imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority, which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs.35,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is before me.
3. Shri Abdul Rehman, Power of Attorney Holder appeared before me and prayed that as the demurrage and detention charges is amounting high on the appellant, the redemption fine and penalty be reduced.
4. Heard.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the application for early hearing of the appeal and after granting the stay, I take up the appeal for final disposal today itself.
6. After considering the fact that the appellant has brought the impugned vehicle in the impression that the appellant will be entitled for T/R facility for both the vehicles and out of these, one vehicle was allowed and other vehicle was detained. Further, as the detention and demurrage charges on the vehicle are increasing everyday, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs.15,000/- and penalty to Rs.10,000/-. With these observations, I allow the appeal in the above terms. The stay petition and early hearing application are also disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Vks/ 1