TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications filed in some of the aforesaid appeals on the ground that no question of law arises therein in each of those cases and on that ground, the petitions filed before the High Court were rejected. 3. The Commissioner by filing these appeals has challenged the legality of the orders of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has passed orders reducing the amount of redemption fine and also the quantum of penalty imposed by the Commissioner in all the aforesaid cases. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the Appellant in these cases is that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the amount of redemption fine imposed on the parties as also the quantum of penalty imposed, without giving strong and cogent reasons for differing wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as first batch of appeals for disposal. Upon going through the records and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties, we find that in all these appeals, no market enquiry was conducted by the appellants and the redemption fine and the penalty was imposed by the Commissioner without making any market enquiry. 10. In this connection, we may refer to the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), which is the provision providing the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. The proviso to Section 125 of the Act provides as follows: "SECTION 125 Option to pay fine in lieu of confis- cation. (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act being the provision for levying the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, the said provision is to be strictly followed and, therefore, said redemption fine should be imposed by the competent authority which amount would not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. 13. It is true that in the present case, the respondents had imported Marble Blocks without any licence and, therefore, their goods which were sought to be imported, were confiscated. On payment of duty as determined, the question that arose was as to what would be the redemption fine payable, if any. The said issue was considered by the Commissioner and thereafter he had imposed redemption fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and also because of the fact that no sample of the goods imported by the respondents has been retained or kept by the Department. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in the aforesaid appeals, no useful purpose would be served by interfering with the orders passed by the Tribunal, particularly in view of the fact that even the Department is unable at this time to ascertain and determine the market price of the goods confiscated so as to enable the authorities to levy appropriate redemption fine. In that view of the matter, we dismiss these appeals on the aforesaid grounds leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 16. Having decided the aforesaid appeals in the manner, we now proceed to decide C.A. No. 2657 of 2007. Having gone t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by about 50%, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served in remanding these appeals to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The aforesaid amount is already paid and the said amount paid appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the said case. Besides, the Tribunal has taken a lenient view on account of the facts and circumstances of those appeals and has exercised a discretion which does not appear to us to be arbitrary. Therefore, these appeals are also dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 18. We are now left with the records of C.A. No. 2661 of 2007. This appeal appears to have been earlier dismissed by CESTAT being appeal no. C/251/2000 and overlooking the aforesaid fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso the penalty to 20% and 5% respectively. We find that the said order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and whimsical, for no reasons have been recorded specifically as to why in these particular cases it should be reduced to 20% and 5% respectively. It has been held by this Court that there cannot be any universal rule of reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 20% and 5% and determination of quantum to be paid as redemption fine and penalty should be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Commssioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries, reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), it was held by this Court that a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption fine and pen....