TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3,04,000 45,000 3 C/481/09 Bhavani Enterprises 41/09 2,37,682 4,15,000 60,000 4 C/482/09 Bhavani Enterprises 40/09 3,18,490 5,29,000 76,000 5 C/483/09 Tirupati Fin Trade 43/09 3,38,075 5,40,000 80,000 6 C/484/09 High Mount Business Systems 32/09 3,98,098 6,42,000 92,000 7 C/485/09 Maa Tara Enterprises 39/09 2,97,506 5,35,000 77,000 8 C/486/09 Maa Tara Enterprises 45/09 3,25,495 4,46,000 64,000 9 C/487/09 Office Devices 48/09 1,44,688 2,65,000 38,000 10 C/488/09 Office Devices 50/09 15,49,963 5,50,000 80,000 11 C/489/09 Mahavir Enterprises 46/09 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds and gave certificate regarding the value of the goods. Importers accepted the said value of the goods and discharged the duty liability. The Adjudicating Authority passed an adjudication order and confirmed the enhancement of the value and held that the goods are liable for confiscation. Coming to such a conclusion, imposed the redemption fine and penalty in all these cases. 3. Appellants aggrieved by such an order, preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not in accordance with the law as has been laid down by this Bench of the Tribunal and sought the reduction in the redemption fine. Learned Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Photo Copiers/Computers and of different brand and has different country of origin. He would rely upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sophisticated Marbles & Granite Industries v. Union of India as reported at 2004 (166) E.L.T. 318 (Bom.) for this proposition and would also submit that this was upheld by the Supreme Court as reported at 2004 (170) E.L.T. A264 (S.C.). He would also submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that facts and circumstances of each case needs to be gone into detail and if there is a slight change in the facts and circumstances of the case, then the ratio laid down should not be considered as directly applicable. It is his submission that in all these cases facts of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces (supra). 6. As regards the imposition of redemption fine, we find from the chart given by the learned Counsel that the Adjudicating Authority has imposed redemption fine of 35% of the value of the imported goods as has been certified by the Chartered Engineer, the said redemption fine has been upheld by the learned Commissioner, (Appeals) in the impugned order. We find that this is not in accordance with the law as has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Office Devices. We find that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, in an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of this very Bench will be binding on us and we need to follow the same. We may reproduce the said ratio : 8. The dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be said that it is a perverse finding. What would have been the rate had the matter been dealt with by this Court sitting in the armchair of the Appellate Authority, however, cannot be substituted. 9. In this regard, we may refer to certain case law cited by both sides. A Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sai Copiers [2008 (226) E.L.T. 486 (Mad.)] had occasion to consider a similar case where the Tribunal had reduced the amount of penalty and redemption fine to 5% end 15% respectively of the value of the goods. It was held thus : "The statutory requirement is that the imposition of redemption fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rest of the cases, certainly, the Tribunal would have and ought to have considered those additional materials in arriving as to whether the rate imposed should be the same or whether any variation has to be made in the factual situation. In so far as no such attempt is made by the appellant before the Tribunal, we cannot find that this is dissimilar to the other cases. Any authority exercising the power is also bound by law of precedence and it is necessary to maintain consistency as otherwise it will be characterized as discriminatory. Therefore, this is not a case where the rate is applied uniformly in a mechanical way; but similar rate of redemption fine was adopted for parity of reasons. 6.1 Accordingly, in the facts and circums....