https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90937 The appeal challenged the imposition of a redemption fine at 100% of the CIF value, arguing for consistency with previous cases set at 85%. The Tribunal emphasized the need for transparency and adherence to legal principles when increasing fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked evidence for justifying the 100% fine based on profit margin. The inconsistency in applying redemption fines led to a modification to 85% in line with past practices. The importance of following judicial precedents and maintaining discipline in decision-making was underscored, resulting in the modification of the redemption fine percentage in favor of established precedents and judicial discipline. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:39:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90937 The appeal challenged the imposition of a redemption fine at 100% of the CIF value, arguing for consistency with previous cases set at 85%. The Tribunal emphasized the need for transparency and adherence to legal principles when increasing fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked evidence for justifying the 100% fine based on profit margin. The inconsistency in applying redemption fines led to a modification to 85% in line with past practices. The importance of following judicial precedents and maintaining discipline in decision-making was underscored, resulting in the modification of the redemption fine percentage in favor of established precedents and judicial discipline. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90937