2017 (4) TMI 1201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Mr. Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the learned Commissioner has imposed redemption fine of Rs. 3/- lakh under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2/- lakh on the appellant under Section 112(a) of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervices of independent Chartered Engineer for ascertaining the value of the goods. The Chartered Engineer valued the goods at Rs. 94,54,419/- and on the basis of the said report, the value was re-determined as Rs. 94,54,419/- and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the proprietor of the appellant proposing to re-determine the value along with confiscation and imposition of penalty under S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d fine of Rs. 3 lakh and penalty of Rs. 2 lakh. The appellant accepted the valuation done by the Commissioner but filed the present appeal challenging the imposition of fine and penalty. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing fine and penalty is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed witho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f goods at higher rate but did not impose redemption fine and penalty. The learned counsel also produced the true copy of these OIOs along with the appeal. He further submitted that the Hon'ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Chemsilk Commerce (P) Ltd. vs. CC (Port), Kolkata reported in 2009 (233) ELT 113 (Tri.- Kolkata) while deciding a similar case of demand of differential duty which was made on....