Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Gen) & Cfs ... vs M/S. Liberty Impex on 29 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
C/292 to 295/07
- Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. 244 (CFS, Mulund(I)/2006 (JNCH) dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
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 No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Customs (Gen) & CFS Mulund, Mumbai
Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Liberty Impex
M/s. Angel Impex
M/s. Kamal Enterprises
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.J. Shahu, AC (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 29/05/2015 Date of decision : 29/05/2015 O R D E R No:..
Per: M.V. Ravindran:
All these four appeals are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order and issue involved is also the same.
2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. On perusal of the records, we find that the appeals can be disposed of without any representation from the respondent assessee.
3. Heard the Departmental Representative and perused the records.
4. The issue involved in all these appeals is regarding the reduction of Redemption Fine and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has held that the goods imported by the respondent Mutilated Rags are misdeclared and required licence under the Policy. Coming to such a conclusion, the goods were confiscated allowed to be redeemed on payment of Redemption Fine and penalty was also imposed. On an appeal the first appellate authority has reduced the Redemption Fine and penalty to 25% and 5% of the value as has been arrived at. Revenues appeal is against such reduction of Redemption Fine and penalty.
5. On perusal of the records, we find that the first appellate authority while reducing the Redemption Fine and penalty has recorded as under:-
I have gone through the facts of the case carefully and the case law cited by the appellant. I find that Tribunal in the case of Garment India Corpn. Vs. CC Import, Nhava Sheva no. A/35/WZB/06-C-1 (CSTB) dated 05.01.2006 while dealing with quantum of fine and penalty to be imposed in case of import of old and used garments, has taken the fine and penalty amount at 25% and 5% of the value respectively. In the said case, Tribunal has taken notice of its earlier decision in the case of Asian Woollen Mills Order no. A/28/WZB/2005/C-1 dated 04.08.2005 and Krishna Export Corpn., Order no. C-2/1134-77/03/WZB dated 22.05.2003, wherein amount of fine and penalty was taken at 25% and 5% of the CIF value. The issue decided in the aforesaid decisions are similar to the present appeals regarding quantum of fine and penalty to be imposed in case of import of old and used garments, and applicable to the present appeals. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower adjudicating authority and same are upheld on amount of Fine and penalty. Appeals filed by the department are rejected as to avoid any disparity among the similarly placed cases.
6. It can be seen from the above reproduced finding of the first appellate authority, the First appellate authority has followed the law as has been decided by the Tribunal on identical set of facts. No contrary view has been brought to our notice by the ld. Departmental Representative nor brought to the notice of the bench that the final order of the Tribunal as referred to by the first appellate authority were set aside.
7. In view of the foregoing, we find that the first appellate authority was correct in following the law as has been laid down in identical/similar set of facts as are in these cases. Revenues appeals are devoid of merits.
8. All the appeals are rejected and we hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (P.S. Pruthi) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) //SR 4