2007 (12) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. However they were released on execution of a bond and Bank Guarantee. The Adjudicating authority passed an order dated 20-10-1999 wherein he demanded differential duty. Further he imposed a penalty which is equal to the duty demanded, i.e. Rs. 4,96,827/-. Revenue appealed to the Tribunal against the said order of the Commissioner because the Commissioner has not given a finding that the goods were liable for confiscation. Further he did not impose any penalty. Therefore Revenue relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. C.C., New Delhi [2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.)] appealed to the Tribunal for issue of suitable order. Thereafter the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original authority for decid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n fine under Section 125 can be imposed. In that decision, the Tribunal has actually distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in Weston Components Ltd. (supra) case. In this case, the goods were originally released on execution of a bond. However later on adjudication when it was found that there was a violation of law, redemption fine has been imposed. When the appellants went in appeal, the Supreme Court held that even after the release of the goods, if it was found that there was some violation then the customs authority can confiscate the goods and that the mere facts that the goods were released on the bond executed could not take away the power of the customs authority to levy redemption fine. The Tribunal in the aforementioned ca....