2026 (4) TMI 1847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly served upon the respondent/ assessee but as recorded in order dated 03.03.2025, the assessee was duly served with the notice of hearing of the miscellaneous application along with the present appeal. But the appellant still has opted to not to appear. The said miscellaneous application seeking incorporation of additional grounds was also allowed ex-parte. Since then, till date also there have been more than five opportunities, but the assessee/ respondent is repeatedly absent. 2. Vide order dated 18.11.2025, there had been the clarification that no further adjournment shall be granted to the respondent. The said warning has also not caused any change viz-a-viz, the option of the respondent/ assessee to remain absent. Resultantly, we r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10.05.2021, confirmed differential duty demand of Rs.17,60,809/, confiscated the goods under Sections 111(l) and 111(m), imposed redemption fine of Rs.17,60,000/, and penalty of equal amount under Section 114A (Order-in-Original, Para 1.6). In appeal against the said Order-in-Original, Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 407/2021-22 dated 17.09.2021, while upholding confiscation and enhanced valuation, reduced redemption fine to Rs.78.80 lakh and set aside penalty under Section 114A (Order-in-Appeal, Para 2.1-2.4). Thereafter, the Committee of Commissioners, vide Review Order dated 07.12.2021, directed the filing of the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. While pleading for restoring the penalty of order-in-original, lear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aving heard the department and perusing the record of the appeal memo and the grounds as were taken by the assessee in an application for stay filed under proviso to Section 129 of Customs Act, 1962, it is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed redemption of fine, thereby, confirming that the goods were liable to confiscation under 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said confiscation was initially ordered by original adjudicating authority observing the deliberate suppression on part of the assessee/respondent. Once the confiscation has been upheld, there appears no reason with Commissioner (Appeals) to held that the misdeclaration was not result of deliberate suppression. The finding of Commissioner (Appeals) tha....