1984 (10) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. ORDER The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order bearing No. 203/80 dated 17th March, 1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are not in dispute. The appellant's vessel bearing registration No. P.L.G. - 68....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e vessel when it was built was only Rs. 34,000/- and at the time of seizure it was Rs. 30,000/-. Ten long years have elapsed and the present value would not be more than Rs. 10,000/-. He further submitted that the Learned Member of the Board having held that the Department had not rebutted the value stated by the appellant unjustifiably imposed a fine of Rs. 35,000/-. Shri Raichandani further subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be less than Rs. 75,000/-. Even if depreciation of 15% is allowed the payment of fine imposed by the Additional Collector cannot be considered as unjust. Shri Gidwani further submitted that the vessel was sold on 29-9-1980 in Public Auction for Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the present contention of the appellant that its market value is only Rs. 10,000/- has no basis. 5. In reply, Shri Raichan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and sold the vessel in public auction. 7. The very fact that the vessel fetched Rs. 30,000/- in a public auction held in the year 1980 disproves the contention of Shri Raichandani that the market value cannot exceed Rs. 10.000/-. 8. The confiscation had been ordered under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. The appellant had been exonerated under Section 112 in that no personal penalty had b....