Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned senior counsel counsel appearing parties agreed appeal disposed this stage itself. We find the prayer reasonable and, accordingly, decide the appeal here and now.
- Para 44. We considered submissions learned senior counsel counsel. We considered 18th July, 2005 passed Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench short, ‘the Tribunal’). In view, Tribunal unsustainable disclose reason justifiable reason reducing redemption 30% penalty 5% (for CIF goods. It 2nd May…
- Para 66. We, accordingly, 18th July, 2005 passed Tribunal. Appeal Nos. C-330/97 C-9/98 restored Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. The parties directed appear before Tribunal 17th April,
Judgment
circumstances redemption (f) 30% without earlier Order (b) Whether circumstances 2 justified imposed reasons No.C-II/2268-7/WZB/2002 but relying upon the Order No.398/05-C, dated 2.5.2005, CESTAT New Delhi? ignoring restricting importer Tribunal without 5% giving earlier penalty CIF Order 10.1.2002, (c) passed Whether 2.5.2005 settles question not, whether it was binding on the CESTAT, Mumbai? No.398/05-C CESTAT law? New And Delhi
The learned senior counsel counsel appearing parties agreed appeal disposed this stage itself. We find the prayer reasonable and, accordingly, decide the appeal here and now.
We considered submissions learned senior counsel counsel. We considered 18th July, 2005 passed Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench short, ‘the Tribunal’). In view, Tribunal unsustainable disclose reason justifiable reason reducing redemption 30% penalty 5% (for CIF goods. It 2nd May, 2005 passed Tribunal Appeal No.C-276/97-C challenged Department wherein redemption penalty reduced 30% 5% CIF respectively order, surely, relied a precedent 3 binding circumstances present disclose reason reduction redemption penalty 30% 5% CIF respectively. It emphasis confiscation having passed Section 111(d), (f) (n) Customs Act, 1962, option redeem confiscated goods, question redemption penalty depend circumstances case. Isolated repeated conduct petitioner important aspect consideration relevant factors justifying redemption confiscated payment particular penalty. No applied. Each facts. seen, examined considered Each redemption imposition penalty, opinion, independently examined; cannot binding a precedent guidance enable authority conclusion payment penalty, redemption confiscated permitted. In considered view, passed Tribunal interfering Commissioner reason and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The aforesaid questions stand answered accordingly. 4
The learned senior counsel counsel parties agreed matter remitted the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
We, accordingly, 18th July, 2005 passed Tribunal. Appeal Nos. C-330/97 C-9/98 restored Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. The parties directed appear before Tribunal 17th April,
2006. The Tribunal expected decide aforesaid appeals expeditiously and, convenient possible, preferably within three months from the date of the appearance. . No costs. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Customs Act, 1962.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 21 Mar 2006. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.