TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cepted while coming from Nepal on their bicycles carrying foreign origin metal scrap totally valued at Rs. 5,390/-. The goods along with bicycles (valued at Rs. 1500/-) were placed under seizure. The Asstt. Commissioner confiscated the goods and the bicycles and imposed penalty of Rs. 200/- on each of the respondents under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department filed review appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancement of penalty on the ground that the minimum penalty, which can be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is Rs. 5,000/-. But the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dismissed the Department's appeals. The Department has come in appeal before the Tribunal against the Commissioner's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty to at least Rs. 5000/- each. 2.2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the above six appeals of the Department for enhancement of penalty. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 2.3 In appeals at Serial Numbers 12, 13 and 14, the respondents were intercepted while coming from Nepal with miscellaneous foreign origin goods valued at Rs. 4,390/-. The goods were confiscated by the Asstt. Commissioner and penalties of Rs. 300/- Rs. 100/- and Rs. 100/- were imposed on Shri Rohit Singh, Shri Hasnain and Shri Santosh Sharma respectively under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Here also, the Department filed review appeals before the Commissioner of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Narayan Das reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 215 (Tribunal-Delhi), wherein it was held that Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and penalty lower than this amount cannot be imposed and also the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva v. Prakash Oriental Manufacturers Micro Inks Ltd. reported in 2009 (247) E.L.T. 779 ( Tribunal-Mumbai), wherein the same view was taken. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the ld. Departmental Representatives and have also gone through the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Department. The common issue involved in these appeals is as to whether penalty less than Rs. 5,000/- can be imposed on a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty prescribed, when in respect of the offending goods any prohibition is in force, is "not exceeding the value of the goods or Rs. 5,000/-, whichever is greater and in case of dutiable goods other than prohibited goods the penalty prescribed is "not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is greater". Thus when the value of the offending goods or the duty sought to be evaded is less than Rs. 5,000/-, penalty imposable would be not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- and when the value of the offending goods or duty involved is more than Rs. 5,000/-, the penalty imposable would be not exceeding the value of the offending good or the duty involved, as the case may be. The Department's contention would have been correc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h penal provisions Rule 25(i) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and therefore, the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Rama Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to this case. The judgments cited by the learned Departmental Representative and the judgements of Single Member Bench. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The Revenue's appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 8. Before parting with this matter, I can not help observing that the amounts involved in all these appeals are petty and I wonder as to what the department wants to achieve by filing appeals for enhancement of penalties in such petty cases before the Tribunal-more so when from a plain reading of clau....