Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Pune vs M/S. Stoneman on 31 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. C/240-241/2004-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-CUS/BKS/49/2003 dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Goa ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K.Jain, Member (Technical) ============================================================
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, Pune :
Appellant VS M/s. Stoneman :
Respondent Appearance Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 31/10/2013 Date of decision : 31/10/2013 ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang Heard the Ld. A.R. As none appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. Common issue is involved therefore the appeals are being taken up together.
3. The Revenue is only asking for enhancement of fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority after taking into facts and circumstances of the case imposed a redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancement of fine and penalty vide impugned order, therefore the appeal is dismissed. The Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeals following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Customs (Imports) Vs. Royal Impex & Others, vide order dt. 30.5.2002. Keeping in view as the issue is already settled by the Tribunal, which is followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the small amount in dispute. We find no infirmity in the impugned order therefore the appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated in court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
2