Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in cases involving import of second-hand photocopiers held liable to confiscation under the import policy, the redemption fine and penalty could be restricted uniformly to 10% and 5% of the value of the imported goods, and whether the Revenue's challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order warranted interference.
Analysis: The issue had already been decided in identical and similar matters concerning import of second-hand photocopiers, where the Tribunal fixed redemption fine at 10% and penalty at 5% of the value of the goods having regard to the facts and circumstances. The Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed those decisions, and the same approach had also been upheld by the High Court of Madras. The reasoning adopted was that similar imports should not be subjected to different criteria, as that would amount to discrimination and would offend judicial discipline. The authorities relied upon by the Revenue were found not to concern second-hand photocopiers, and the earlier Tribunal view had not been reversed by any higher court.
Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in restricting redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% respectively, and the Revenue's challenge failed.