TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ern Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad dated 05.12.2019 in the Customs Appeal No.C/10749/2017. The Revenue has proposed the following questions for the consideration of this Court:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law by reducing the redemption fine considering the quantum of duty evaded in the consignment rather than considering market price of the confiscated goods for determining the quantum of redemption fine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by not imposing penalty on the partner Sanjay M. Patel, having active role in evasion of duty, by considering Hon'ble High Court's order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... none of the two questions proposed by the Revenue could be termed as the substantial questions of law. We can do no better than refer to a direct decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries, reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T 3 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "11. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to make a reference to the provisions of Section 130A of the Act, which read as follows: "130A. Application to High Court. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under section 129B passed [before the 1st ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries (supra). It is a trite proposition that unless the correctness of facts, on the basis whereof an inference is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, a question of law does not arise from its order. 12. In Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay a Constitution Bench observed that: "5. The question whether or not the Hindu undivided family was doing business in shares transferred to it by the firm, is undoubtedly a question of fact; but if the court of fact whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at this decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Income Tax, (2008) 12 SCC 458, this Court had observed that: "Question as to perversity of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts was neither raised nor referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the facts is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable person could have taken such a view. In reference jurisdiction, the High Court can answer the question of law referred to it and it is only when a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is challenged on the ground of ....