C.C. (Icd), New Delhi vs M/S. Prime Traders
- CitationAppeal No.C/201/2010-CU[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Commissioner, having held the goods liable to confiscation for mis-declaration and under-valuation, records in the order that a fine is to be recovered but does not actually impose a redemption fine, and does not quantify it, the order is defective on that part and is set aside to that extent, with the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to quantify and impose the redemption fine, the remainder of the order being confirmed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Appeal No.C/201/2010-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/2010, dated 25.02.2010 passed by the C.C.(ICD), New Delhi]
C.C. (ICD), New Delhi Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Prime Traders Respondents
Appearance
Shri RK Mishra, DR - for the appellants
None - for the respondents
CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No.50082/2015, dated 07.01.2015
Per Mr. Ashok Jindal :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein ld. commissioner while assessing of the goods in question held liable for confiscation, but did not impose redemption fine for release of the goods although in his order he has stated that duty, interest, fine and penalty is to be recovered from the respondents from a personal bond executed by them. No fine has been imposed on the respondents, therefore the impugned order is to be set aside and remanded back to the adjudicating authority for quantification of redemption fine.
2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents nor any adjournment request from them. On perusal of record, we find that notice of hearing is returned with the remark not known. Therefore, we proceed to decide the issue on merits.
3. We have perused the orders. On perusal we find that the ld. commissioner while adjudicating the matter hold that it is a matter of mis-declaration consequently under-valuation of goods and is liable for confiscation. Although in his order he has stated duty, interest, fine and penalty to recovered from the respondents, but he did not impose the redemption fine on the respondents. In absence of any quantification of redemption fine, the order is defective on this part. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside qua none imposition of redemption fine on the respondents. Therefore, the matter is remanded to adjudicating authority for quantification of imposition of redemption fine on the respondents, rest of the order is confirmed Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
SSK
-2-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free