Commissioner of Customs (imports) Chennai Vs. A.K.Marble and Granite (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/944224 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Decided On | Mar-25-2010 |
| Case Number | Appeal No.C/S/93 of 2010 & C/106 of 2010 |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT |
| Appellant | Commissioner of Customs (imports) Chennai |
| Respondent | A.K.Marble and Granite (India) Pvt. Ltd. |
| Advocates: | Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR. Shri C.Krishnanandh, Advocate. |
Excerpt:
.....the order of commissioner (appeals) who has reduced the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of excess quantity of polished marble slabs imported by the respondents herein and also reduced the penalty, and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself today with the consent of both sides, as the issue as to whether reduction in fine and penalty in such situation is warranted, stands covered by the decision of the tribunal in commissioner of customs, pune vs dipen enterprises [2003 (160) elt 632]. 2. i note that the reasoning of the lower appellate authority for reduction in both fine and penalty is the fact that differential duty involved on the goods is only rs.75,743/-. no ground has been made out by the revenue for enhancement. further, in the decision cited supra, it has been held.....
Judgment:For reasons recorded below, I reject the application of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who has reduced the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of excess quantity of polished marble slabs imported by the respondents herein and also reduced the penalty, and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself today with the consent of both sides, as the issue as to whether reduction in fine and penalty in such situation is warranted, stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Pune Vs Dipen Enterprises [2003 (160) ELT 632].
2. I note that the reasoning of the lower appellate authority for reduction in both fine and penalty is the fact that differential duty involved on the goods is only Rs.75,743/-. No ground has been made out by the Revenue for enhancement. Further, in the decision cited supra, it has been held that for import of marginal excess quantity of marble (in the present case also, the excess is to the extent of 25%), enhancement of fine and penalty is not sustainable. I, therefore, uphold the amounts of fine and penalty as reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), and reject the appeal of the Revenue.