2019 (8) TMI 1513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ON'BLE SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri S. Guha, A.R. for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER PER P.K. CHOUDHARY : In view of the reasons as explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, is condoned. The Miscellaneous Application (COD) is allowed. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, we obse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Act, varying from 10% to 11%. 4. The order passed by the original adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the importer. The First Appellate Authority, by passing the impugned order, upheld the order of confiscation and enhancement of value. However, he reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed to 10% and 5% respectively. Revenue has challenged this o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). 7. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case ....