Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
M/S Bhagwan Electro Pho Copiers, 1 vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 November, 2014 cites

M/S Be Office Automation Products ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 November, 2013

It is no doubt true that a repeat violator has to be imposed appropriate fine and penalty in order that the same acts as a deterrent to the repeated violation of law, however, at the same time, the Tribunal could not CUSAP No. 1 of 2014 -8- lose site of the fact that in similar cases it had reduced redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5%. Without going into the issue whether the restriction imposed vide notification dated 5.6.2012 was applicable or not in view of the period involved being prior to 5.6.2012, we hold that the ends of justice would be met if the quantum of redemption fine and penalty is reduced from the excessive rate at which it has been imposed to 20% each of redemption fine as well as penalty imposed vide the order in original. Our view finds support from the decision of this Court in Customs Appeal No. 14 of 1011 (M/s BE Office Automation Products Limited, Baddi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon), decided on 18.11.2013 as well of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Tuticorn Vs. M/s Sai Copiers and others [2008- TIOL-98-HC-MAD-CUS]. Accordingly, order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Sri Venkatesh Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Customs on 13 March, 2006

11. Here again, the maximum that could be levied is only prescribed. There is no statutory prescription that the penalty should not be reduced by the appellate authority. Before the Tribunal, the importers relied on the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Venkatesh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2005(192) ELT 818 = [2005-TIOL-363- CESTAT-DEL)] wherein the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of second hand photocopiers valued at Rs.17.7 lakhs was restricted to Rs.2.5 lacs and the quantum of penalty was restricted to Rs.85,000/-. The same was followed in the case of the respondents also by the Tribunal. The fixation of the quantum of redemption is an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the authorities under the Customs Act. The Court can interfere only in the circumstances in which it was demonstrated before it that the order of the Tribunal is thoroughly arbitrary, whimsical and resulting in miscarriage of justice. As already stated, the Tribunal has followed its own CUSAP No. 1 of 2014 -7- earlier decision wherein the Tribunal has consistently imposed the redemption fine at 15 per cent and penalty under Section 112(a) at 5 per cent of the value of the goods, which factum has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the department. In the above said view of the matter, we find no question of law, much less a substantial question for entertaining these appeals. Hence the appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2007 in C.N. A. No.127 to 130 of 2008 are also dismissed."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S.Unitech Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 19 July, 2010

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.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

M/S. Shivam International vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 3 June, 2011

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that although as per commercial invoice and packing list the goods were photocopier machines yet the machines were not simple photocopier machines, but multi functional machines as per survey carried out by Chartered Engineer (Annexure A-8). The Tribunal in the case of Shivam International Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2012 (286) ELT 545 had held that used digital multifunctional print and copier machines were not photocopier machines. It was further submitted that it was only w.e.f. 5.6.2012 vide para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, (notification No.I(RE-2012)/2009-14) that the DGFT put digital copier under the category of restricted goods. The instant case period involved was much prior to 5.6.2012, therefore, the restriction imposed vide notification dated 5.6.2012 was not applicable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S.Jai Bhawani Steel Enterprises Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) on 15 December, 2008

Bang) and Bhavani Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2010 (262) E.L.T. 536. In the last case, it was ordered that redemption fine shall not be in excess of 15% of the value of imported goods, whereas penalty of 5% of value on imported goods as certified by chartered engineers was upheld. It may be noticed that in these three cases cited by the appellant, there was import of second hand photocopier machines etc.; so is the case in the present appeals.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

M/S.Sai Graphics vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 14 June, 2011

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.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - M Jaichandren - Full Document
1