TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... listed today. With the concurrence of both sides, they were called for from the registry and taken up for disposal. The details of the appeals are as follows - S. No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Redemption fine imposed by Appellate authority Penalty imposed by Appellate authority 1. C/154/2010 Vijaya Enterprises C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 4 lakhs ₹ 2 lakhs 2. C/155/2010 SVS Copiers C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 3. C/162/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 2 lakhs ₹ 1 lakh 4. C/163/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 5. C/165/2010 Copier Marketing Corpn. C.C., Hyderabad ₹ 3 lakhs ₹ 1.5 lakhs 6. C/16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are challenging the orders of confiscation and redemption fines and penalties. 2.3 The department, in four of their appeals, is seeking enhancement of redemption fines and penalties to the levels at which the original authority has imposed. 3.1 Learned advocate appearing for the importers, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International and Others v. C.C., Cochin in Appeal No. C/2477 to 2488/2010 reported in 2011-TIOL-851-CESTAT (Bang.) = 2012 (286) E.L.T. 545 (Tri.) 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 confis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licences. It is his submission that they ordered for 600 pieces of photocopiers in March, 2009 and the same were imported in several consignments and having placed the order, they were bound to import them failing which they would be put to heavy financial loss. Such cases of imports in different lots of goods based on single order cannot be treated as repeated violations as held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Pune v. Dipen Enterprises [2003 (160) E.L.T. 632 (Tri.-Mum.)]. 4.1 Learned DR strongly supports the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the confiscation and imposing penalties. It was contended that the importers have submitted to the jurisdiction of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals). Having s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arefully considered submissions from both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue regarding lack of jurisdiction on the part of original authority has been raised on behalf of the importers for the first time before the Tribunal. This has been raised based on the submissions that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International (supra) is applicable to them and the goods imported by them did not require a licence and, therefore, the consignments should not have been subjected to adjudication and redemption fines and penalties should not have been imposed. On a close reading of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam International, it is seen that the same related to "old and used digital multi-fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals). There is no reason to interfere with the orders of confiscation as adjudged by the original authority and as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Learned advocate on behalf of the importers, as an alternative, was seeking further reduction in redemption fines and penalties. He relied on several decisions of the Tribunal where in respect of import of photocopiers redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods imported have been sustained. The claim of the learned advocate is that in the case of Royal Traders, the appellant ascertained the profit margins to be 12.16% and the same has been duly noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) but yet he has sustained redemption fine of about 18% of the declared value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny basis or without conducting any enquiry. Regarding the claim on behalf of M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation that they placed an order for 600 pieces which they imported in different lots and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as repeated offence, it is to be noted that the appellant has not produced any evidence that for the said 600 photocopiers for which the order was placed by them in March, 2009, they have committed to make payments at one go. After the violation was noticed, it has not been shown that they were prevented from cancelling the order risking losses of money, if any, paid by them. Therefore, the appellant's claim that they were importing consignments in different lots based on a single order and they were incapable o....