Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
C.C. Trichy vs Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Sha ... on 26 March, 2001
ORDER
Shri SL Peeran
1. All these four appeals of the Revenue arise from the same common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Trichy in order in appeal No. 24 to 27/96 Cus dated 2.7.96. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine in the appeals filed before him as under:
(a) A.No. C24S/20/96 : From Rs 4,17,000/- to Rs 3,12,750
(b) A.No. C24S/21/96 : From Rs 8,34,000/- to Rs. 6,25,500/-
(c) A.No. C24S/22/96 : From Rs 9,52,000/- to Rs. 8,09,200/-
(d) A.No. C24S/23/96 : From Rs. 9,52,000/- to Rs 8,09,200/-
2. The learned DR submits that the Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction of the redemption fine and seeks for reversal of the order and confirmation of the fine as imposed by the original authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner in the respective orders in original. On a query from the Bench as to whether the matter is covered by the larger bench judgement in the case of Harpeet International vs. CC, Amritsar, reported in 2000 (120) ELT 529 (T) wherein the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble President has upheld the fixation of redemption fine at 85% of the cif value under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, The learned DR submits that in the present case, reduction of the redemption fine by Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of poppy seeds is to extent of 85% which is in keeping with the larger bench decision cited supra. But in so far as the item Cassia is concerned, Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine 25%. He therefore, seeks for enhancement of redemption fine to the level of 85% in respect of this item also in terms of the judgement in the case of Harpeet International (supra).
3. Learned Counsel submits that the larger bench decision has upheld the imposition of redemption fine on poppy seeds to the extent of 85% of the cif value which judgement cannot be applied in respect of Cassia. The larger bench has noted the reason for maintaining redemption fine at 85% of the cir value in view of the subsequent imports made without licence. He submits that in respect of Cassia there is no evidence produced for imposing redemption fine at 85% as there is no evidence of margin of profit of 101%. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has judiciously reduced the RF to 75% and there is no error in the order.
4. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned DR and the learned Counsel, we notice that the larger bence judgement in the case of Harpeet International (supra) is with regard to poppy seeds wherein the evidence of cif value was taken into consideration with regard to this item and upheld the imposition of redemption fine at 85% of the cif value. Therefore, in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reduced the redemption fine at 85% in keeping with the judgement of the larger bench. In so far as the fixation of redemption fine of the item Cassia is concerned the Revenue seeks enhancement of the redemption fine to 85% in terms of the Harpeet International case (supra). This plea cannot be accepted for the reasons stated by the learned Counsel that the Revenue has not produced any evidence of margin of profit in respect of Cassia, for enhancement of redemption fine at the level 85%. The Commissioner (Appeals) has judiciously reduced the redemption fine to 75% of the cif value which is in order and we do not find any infirmity in respect of the item Cassia. In this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order and the appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)