2020 (9) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in trading activity of imported goods. During the disputed period, the appellant had imported ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., wherein the proposals made in the show cause notice were confirmed. On appeal against the said adjudication order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida, reported in 2019-TIOL-2241- CESTAT-ALL. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the appellant had only deposited the duty and interest amount and did not deposit the penalty amount as provided under sub-section (5) of Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proceeded against the appellant for confirmation of the 100% penalty in respect of the short paid amount of duty. Since, there is no ambiguity in interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 28 ibid, with regard to the quantum of penalty to be deposited, I am of the view that the benefit of reducing amount of penalty of 15% should be available to the appellant. 7. In view of a....