M/S. Amit Marbles Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal10 July 2015

Case No.Appeal No. C/361/2004

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stoneman Marble Industries, held that where the facts of a customs case are materially identical to those in a binding decision of the Supreme Court, the adjudicating authority's redemption fine and penalty should be fixed at the levels approved in that decision, namely a redemption fine of 20% and a penalty of 5% of the CIF value, and the appellate authority should reduce the amounts imposed to those levels.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO.Appeal No. C/361/2004

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. S/10-17/2004 Gr.I /S/26-Misc-188/2003 Apprg.Gr.I dt. 31.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) JNCH, Uran

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

============================================================

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?

=============================================================

M/s. Amit Marbles Pvt. Ltd. :

Appellant

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant

Shri M.K. Mall, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 10/07/2015 Date of decision : 10/07/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

Appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that in identical cases the High Court and finally the Supreme Court had upheld the orders that the Tribunal has not erred in imposing redemption fine of 20% of the value and penalty of 5%. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Stoneman Marble Industries 2011 (264) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) is placed before us. The decision in para 5 of the judgment is reproduced below: Aggrieved, the importers approached the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal, in each case, partly allowed the appeal, observing that the facts in case were similar to those in M/s. Stoneman Marble Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Order No. CI/424-25/WZB/2002 dated 30th January 2002) [2004 (177) E.L.T. 1144 (Tribunal), and therefore, the redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 20% and 5% of the CIF value respectively.

2. The Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner.

3. In view of the Apex Court judgment on facts and being a similar case as dealt by Honble Supreme Court, we find it appropriate to reduce the redemption fine from Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) and the penalty from Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).

(Dictated in court)

(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

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