Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, (General) ... vs M/S. Shadab International on 8 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. APPEAL NO. C/920/07 & C/962/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 228(CFS,Mulund(I)/2007(JNCH) dt. 13.08.2007 & 195 (CFS, Mulund(I)/2007(JNCH)a dt. 23.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Sheva Mumbai -II For approval and signature: Hon'ble Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : 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 : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Customs, (General) Mumbai :
Appellant VS M/s. Talu Store M/s. Shadab International Respondent Appearance Shri N.A. Sayad Authorized Representative (DR) Shri Jerry Lewis Advocate for Appellant CORAM:
Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of decision 08/02/08 ORDER NO....................................................
Per : Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal No. 228(CFS,Mulund(I)/2007(JNCH) dt. 13.08.2007 & 195 (CFS, Mulund (I)/2007(JNCH)a dt. 23.7.2007. Since the issue involved in both these cases are identical they are being disposed off by this common order.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the less redemption fine and the penalty is imposed on the respondents for importing rags and mis-declaring them as Old and used cloth. It is the submission that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed are insufficient, as the market value of the said goods were much more, hence both fine and penalty imposed should be enhanced. I find that the issue in this case is no more res-integra, this bench vide Order No. A/150 to 192/WZB/MUM/2007/SMB/C-II in an identical set of facts held as under:-
"Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as reproduced in para -2, rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue before him are on very strong reasoning and is based on the facts. It can be seen from the orders of the lower authorities that while arriving at the conclusion for imposition of redemption fine and personal penalties, the adjudicating authority has considered the provisions of Section 125 is a correct legal proposition. Further, I find that in one of the respondent's case, this bench vide its Order dated 1.11.2007 has upheld that the redemption fine imposed based upon the margin of profit is not correct and set aside the order by reducing the redemption fine and personal penalty. It is on record that the respondents are not in appeal against the impugned order. The respondents have accepted the enhancement of the value and also the redemption fine and personal penalties imposed".
It is seen that, in the case before me also, both the lower authorities have invoked discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
4. I find that the issue involved in this case is now squarely settled in favour of the respondents. As such, I do not find any merits in the appeals.. The appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sm 3