TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. This appeal assails the order of the Commissioner of Customs who has ordered confiscation of goods found in excess while giving an option for redemption with a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 1962. 3. At the stage of hearing of the stay application itself, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the invoice, packing list and that this was a genuine mistake with no mala fide intention. As against the bill of entry No. 850886 dated 27-7-06 which has declared the quantity as 39659 mtrs., an excess quantity of 52121 mtrs. was found. Similarly, as against the bill of entry No. 850888 dated 27-7-06, the declared quantity was 40012 mtrs and an excess quantity of 52121 mtrs. was found. Thus, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 255 (Tribunal), in the case of Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Raigad and the decision reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 61 (Tri.-Mumbai) in the case of H. Kumar Gems v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, contends that as the matter pertains to the excess quantity of the goods, the same may be remanded back for de novo consideration as the appellant has subse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The ld. JDR contended that if the matter is being remanded back for de novo consideration and production of fresh licence, the adjudication authority should not be, in any way, curtailed from passing an adjudication order on all the aspects of the case. 7. Having heard both sides at length and further having considered the submissions made and having regard to the licences that a....