Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Chhabra Sales Corportion vs C.C. New Delhi on 23 October, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPLELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. 3
Appeal C / 199 / 2012
Date of Hearing : 23/10/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A) Cus/ICD/35/ 2012 dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mathew John, Member (Technical)
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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental authorities?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chhabra Sales Corportion Applicant Vs C.C. NEW DELHI Respondent Present for the Appellant : Shri S.S. Arora, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri R.K. Mathur, DR CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Mathew John, Member (Technical) ORDER NO . ________________________ Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant imported old and used tyres and declared the country of origin as UAE whereas the goods were found to be of Japanese origin. Accordingly, value was enhanced from Rs.16.77 lakhs to Rs.23.64 lakhs. Further, as the goods required a licence the same were held liable for confiscation and penalty was imposed.
2. Learned advocate is not disputing the loading of assessable value or the redemption fine which stands fixed at Rs.3.50 lakhs by Commissioner (Appeals). His only contention is that penalty of Rs.4 lakh is much on higher side and submits that in all identical matters Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the same to 5% of the assessable value, he accordingly, prays for reducing the quantum of penalty to 5%.
3. After hearing learned DR, we uphold the value of imported goods as also the Redemption fine. However, keeping in view that penalty of Rs.4 lakh is on the higher side, we reduce the same to Rs.1.15 lakhs. But for the modification of quantum of penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
(Pronounced in the open Court) Archana Wadhwa (Judicial Member) Mathew John (Technical Member) ss