TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal No. C/158/2010 is by M/s. Copier Marketing Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 74/2009 (H-II) Cus. dated 07.10.2009 seeking reduction of redemption fine and penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2.2. Appeal No. C/159/2010 is by M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 75/2009 (H-II) Cus. dated 07.10.2009 seeking reduction of redemption fine and penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2.3. C/160/2010 is an appeal against the Order No. 76/2009 (H-II) Cus. dated 08.10.2009 seeking reduction of redemption fine and penalty as sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2.4. Appeal Nos. C/96, 97 & 98/2010 are by the department against the above order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. C/2477 to 2488/2010 reported in [2011-TIOL-851-CESTAT (Bang.)] submits that the said items are to be treated as multi-functional units and not merely as photocopiers and the restriction in the Exim policy will not apply. Therefore, the original authority should not have passed the orders confiscating the goods and imposing penalties and that the orders passed by the original authority are ab-initio invalid. Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction to pass orders can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings as held in the decision of the Tribunal in the case Shri Dhanversha Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2010 (261) E.L.T. 851 (Tri.-Del.)]. 5.2. Alternatively, he submits that the redemption fines imposed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Tribunal. She particularly draws my attention that no such grounds have been taken before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the jurisdiction of the original authority. 6.2. Referring to the appeals by the department, she submits that in the case of M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation and M/s. Royal Traders, Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fines and penalties without recording any valid reasons. As the said importers have repeatedly imported restricted items without the requisite licenses, there was no justification for the Commissioner (Appeals) to reduce the redemption fines and penalties. In this regard, she relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal. a) CC, Chennai Vs. Sagar Enterprises [2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exceeding of jurisdiction by the authorities below does not arise. At any rate, the assessees have submitted to the jurisdiction of the original authority and that of the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision relied upon by the learned advocate in the case of Shri Dhanversha Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot applied to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal is concerned only about the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7.3. The consignments imported by the parties which are photocopiers with certain additional facilities were rightly held liable to confiscation as the same were imported without the requisite licenses for clearances as envisaged under exim policy. It is noted that the original au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and circumstances of the case and is subject to the statutory limit prescribed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, according to which the same cannot exceed the market price. The redemption fine imposed by the Tribunal cannot be taken as truly binding precedents and the same may be taken at the most only as guidelines. If a restricted import takes place repeatedly, the hands of the adjudicating authority cannot be tied by prescribing a lower limit than the statutory limits prescribed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Such a prescription will lead to flooding of prohibited and restricted items into the market which cannot be permitted. However, it is not to say that the discretion can be exercised by the original authority or....