2015 (2) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er referred to as the CESTAT). Counsel for the revenue submits that the CESTAT having accepted findings recorded in the order in original that the respondents intentionally mis-declared goods, has arbitrarily and without assigning any reason, allowed redemption of goods on payment of a paltry amount of redemption fine. Counsel for the revenue further submits that while considering penalty, the CESTAT has reduced the penalty without assigning any reason. The order reducing penalty is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 when read alongwith Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Counsel for the respondents submits that the issue of allowing redemption, has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een drastically reduced. The CESTAT reduced penalty by holding as follows: -                 "4......All the material brought on record by revenue clearly establish the fact that both Vinod Garg and Narsi Das have, by acts of mis-declaring the description of goods, value and quantity have rendered the goods liable to confiscation making them liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act. Similarly the appellant firm/companies are liable to penalty for these acts of commission under Section 114 of the Customs Act. We, however, agree with the learned Advocate that the penalty imposed is on the higher side. The interest of justice will be met....