Commissioner of Customs Vs. Videocon International Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs vs Videocon International Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 17, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40552

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40552
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: T Anjaneyulu, S T Chittaranjan
Decided On: Oct 17, 2005
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Videocon International Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(178)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the departmental appeal is for enhancement of redemption fine in view of the high value of the goods. we find that the adjudicating commissioner has taken a lenient view and has imposed a redemption fine of rs. 10,37,170.20 on the ground that the impugned goods have been imported by the actual user.2. in view of the reasoning given, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. hence, the department's appeal is rejected. the cross-objection filed by the respondents is also rejected as not pressed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The departmental appeal is for enhancement of redemption fine in view of the high value of the goods. We find that the adjudicating Commissioner has taken a lenient view and has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 10,37,170.20 on the ground that the impugned goods have been imported by the actual user.

2. In view of the reasoning given, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Department's appeal is rejected. The cross-objection filed by the respondents is also rejected as not pressed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Videocon International Ltd. Same Subject MRTP Same Judge T Anjaneyulu, S T Chittaranjan