CFI Copiers Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Hyderabad GST
Customs
2018 (11) TMI 98 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 6-9-2018
Appeals No. C\/30020\/2018 & C30021\/2018 – A\/31188\u201331189\/2018
Customs
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
\nShri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
\n1. These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS- 000-APP-083 & 084-17-18, dated 28.08.2017.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. The appellant herein had imported used multi functional photocopier machines without any licence. The said photocopier machines were seized and appellants were directed to fil<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n value, hence liable for confiscation. Adjudicating authority also recorded that appellant being a regular importer, has been repeatedly importing the old and used photocopier machines without producing licence as required under the Foreign Trade Policy, should be penalised. Accordingly, he imposed redemption fine of 25% ad penalty of 15% of the enhanced value and the first appellate authority agreed with the same. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n .T 565 (P&H)] and in the case of National copier Equipments vs. CCE [2015(320) E.L.T. 353 (P&H) has felt that redemption fine against confiscation for the regular violators as 20% of the enhanced value of the photocopier machines. Following the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, I hold that appellant is required to pay redemption fine in both the appeals @ 20% of the enhanced value of the photocopier machines. Coming to the penalty imposed, in my considered view, ends of natural justice would be met, if penalty is restricted to 10% of the enhanced value of the photocopier machines. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CFI Copiers Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Hyderabad GSTCustoms2018 (11) TMI 98 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 6-9-2018Appeals No. C\/30020\/2018 & C30021\/2018 – A\/31188\u201331189\/2018CustomsMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. These two appeals … Continue reading “CFI Copiers Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Hyderabad GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14796","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. It is the argument of Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal has ordered that redemption fine and penalty should be fixed at 10% and 5% respectively on the enhanced value in various cases which applies in the case in hand.
\n5. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that the ratio of the orders of other Benches can not be applied in the case <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. Both the appeals are disposed of, modifying impugned orders as indicated herein above.
\n(Dictated and Pronounced in open Court)<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n