TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (10) TMI 236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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. - 684 was ordered to be confiscated by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilt was only ₹ 34,000/- and at the time of seizure it was ₹ 30,000/-. Ten long years have elapsed and the present value would not be more than ₹ 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 ₹ 35,000/-. Shri Raichandani further submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be less than ₹ 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 ₹ 30,000/-. Therefore, the present contention of the appellant that its market value is only ₹ 10,000/- has no basis. 5. In reply, Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order and sold the vessel in public auction. 7. The very fact that the vessel fetched ₹ 30,000/- in a public auction held in the year 1980 disproves the contention of Shri Raichandani that the market value cannot exceed ₹ 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 pe....