TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LP (C) No. 11181 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11182 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 12641 of 2006 and SLP (C) No. 14991 of 2006 is condoned and Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this batch of appeals is to the orders passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 3rd July, 2003 in Customs Application Nos. 27-29, 31, 34, 36 of 2002 and 2-10 of 2003; 24th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.17-18 of 2003; 30th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.26 and 29 of 2003; 16th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 11-14 of 2003; 6 th April, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 31-33 and 35 of 2003 and 23rd March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 15-16 of 2003. By the impugned orders, the High Court has rejected the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 130A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levied under Section 112(a) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the importers approached the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal, in each case, partly allowed the appeal, observing that the facts in each case were similar to those in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Order No. CI/424-25/WZB/2002 dated 30th January, 2002), and therefore, the redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 20% and 5% of the CIF value respectively. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an application under Section 130A of the Act, stating that the following questions of law arose out of the orders of the Tribunal: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law reducing the redemption fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries and Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. are similar. On perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries and Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. it is seen (sic.) that the Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine and penalty by taking into account the margin of profits and the demurrage incurred by the importers of the said consignments. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in similar circumstances have taken a uniform view to restrict the redemption fine to 20% of the CIF value and penalty to 5% of the CIF value. Under these circumstances, it is evident that the decision of the Tribunal is essentially based on finding of fact. The Tribunal has reduced the rede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the facts in the instant cases were similar to those in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries (supra). Relying on the decision of this Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Super Fasteners, Marwana (Haryana) [(1997) 10 SCC 591], learned counsel contended that it is settled that if the Tribunal in its discretion reduces redemption fine, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the same. 11. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to make a reference to the provisions of Section 130A of the Act, which read as follows: "130A. Application to High Court. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts in the instant cases were similar to those in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries (supra). It is a trite proposition that unless the correctness of facts, on the basis whereof an inference is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, a question of law does not arise from its order. 12. In Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [AIR 1955 SC 271], Bombay a Constitution Bench observed that: "5. The question whether or not the Hindu undivided family was doing business in shares transferred to it by the firm, is undoubtedly a question of fact; but if the court of fact whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at this decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or by considering m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 14. In Sudarshan Silks & Sarees Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka [(2008) 12 SCC 458], this Court had observed that: "Question as to perversity of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts was neither raised nor referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the facts is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable person could have taken such a view. In reference jurisdiction, the High Court can answer the question of law referred to it and it is only when a finding of fact ....