Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Shree Sai Trading vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export) Nhava ... on 4 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI Application No. C/COD/1226/2010 in C/EH/1227/2010 in C/480/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 743 to 745(EXPORT-P CONWARE)/2009(JNCH)/EXP-42 to 44 (w.e.f. 01.07.09) dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, 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 :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Shree Sai Trading :
Appellants VS Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nhava Sheva.
Respondents Appearance Shri Yogesh Rohira, Advocate for Appellants Shri V.K. Singh, SDR Authorized Representative CORAM: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 04/10/2010 ORDER NO. Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Heard both sides.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal along with application for condonation of delay and early hearing of the appeal.
3. The appellant has filed this appeal with a delay of 98 days and sought the condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was under bona fide belief that no appeal would be maintainable or seeking reduction in fine and penalty, if already reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals). On this bona fide belief he failed to prefer the appeal within time but later on he realize that the appeal against the said order can also be maintainable before the Tribunal he filed this appeal and application for condonation of delay.
4. Considering the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay as sufficient, the delay is condoned
5. The appellant has prayed only for reduction on redemption fine and penalty in the appeal and sought the early hearing of the same.
6. Considering the fact that the only issue is of redemption fine and penalty after allowing the application for early hearing, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today itself with the consent of both the sides.
7. On identical facts, in another appeal of the appellants decided by this Tribunal. Considering the fact that the appellant has incurred heavy detention and demurrage charges, reduced the redemption fine and penalty vide Order No. A/344/SMB/WZB/MUM/2010/C-IV dated 21.7.2010, in appeal No. C/479/2010, I reduce the redemption fine and penalty to 50% as confirmed on the impugned order with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 2