Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)

M/S Bhagwan Electro Pho Copiers, 1 vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 November, 2014

The Tribunal while relying on its earlier decision in the case of Unitech Enterprises(Supra) had totally ignored the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sai Graphic Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-import), 2013(289) ELT 423 (Mad.), wherein it had been held that digital multi functional print and copying machines fell under the category of restricted goods w.e.f. 5.6.2012 and that the restriction was operative prospectively only. Lastly, it was argued that without prejudice to the aforementioned submissions, fine and penalty equal to 100% of the value of the goods had been imposed, but the decision of the learned Tribunal as upheld by this Court as well as the decision of the Madras High Court, wherein the learned Tribunal had imposed penalty and fine not more than 20% of the assessed value had been ignored, that although fine and penalty were the discretion of the authorities, but it was settled law that discretion should be exercised judicially and in a consistent manner, therefore, the respondent could CUSAP No. 1 of 2014 -4- not impose penalty from 15% to 20% in one case and 100% in another case. In the light of above, it was contended that the amount of fine and penalty needed to be reduced substantially.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - B S Walia - Full Document

M/S National Copier Equipments vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 December, 2014

The Tribunal while relying on its earlier decision in the case of Unitech Enterprises(Supra) had totally ignored the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sai Graphic Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-import), 2013(289) ELT 423 (Mad.), wherein it had been held that digital multi functional print and copying machines fell under the category of restricted goods w.e.f. BANITA CHUGH 2014.12.23 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CUSAP No. 24 of 2013 -4- 5.6.2012 and that the restriction was operative prospectively only. Lastly, it was argued that without prejudice to the aforementioned submissions, fine and penalty equal to 100% of the value of the goods had been imposed, but the decision of the learned Tribunal as upheld by this Court as well as the decision of the Madras High Court, wherein the learned Tribunal had imposed penalty and fine not more than 20% of the assessed value had been ignored, that although fine and penalty were the discretion of the authorities, but it was settled law that discretion should be exercised judicially and in a consistent manner, therefore, the respondent could not impose penalty from 15% to 20% in one case and 100% in another case. In the light of above, it was contended that the amount of fine and penalty needed to be reduced substantially.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1