Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Office Devices vs Commissioner Of Customs, Cochin on 5 February, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/554/2006-DB, C/555/2006-DB [Arising out of Orders-in-Original No. 23/2006 dated 01/09/2006 and 27/2006 dated 28.9.2006, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s OFFICE DEVICES A/201,AMRUT SAGAR BUILDING S.V.ROAD, BORIVALI(WEST) MUMBAI. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, COCHIN CUSTOM HOUSE COCHIN 682009. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Mohd. Yusuf, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 05/02/2016 Date of Decision: 05/02/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order Nos. 20205 & 20206 / 2016 PER ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides, we find that the challenge in both the cases is against the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed upon the appellant in the case of import of used and old photocopier machines, on allegations and findings of undervaluation and also non-coverage by licence. The only prayer of the learned advocate is that in the precedent decisions, quantum of redemption fine has been reduced to 10% and penalty has been reduced to 5% of the value of the goods. He makes it clear that they are not challenging the valuation part.
2. We find that the said issue was the subject matter of the various decisions of the Tribunal for a long time. One such reference can be made to the Tribunals decision in the case of Omex International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2015 (328) E.L.T. 579 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein the entire case law was discussed. However initially difference of opinion emerged between two Members of the original Bench and the issue was decided, on reference, by a third Member. It was held by the majority decision that the redemption fine to the extent of 10% and penalty to the extent of 5% is appropriate and proper. By following the above decision, we reduce the redemption fine and penalty in both cases to the extent of 10% and 5%, respectively, of the assessed value of the goods. But for the above reduction on quantum of redemption fine and penalty, both the appeals are otherwise rejected.
(Pronounced in open court) (ASHOK K. ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER /vc/