25,00,000/ and penalty imposed u s. 112a from Rs.
29,40,000/ to Rs.
By the impugned orders, the High Court has rejected the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 for short the Act on the ground that numberquestion of law arose from the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal .
The Tribunal, in each case, partly allowed the appeal, observing that the facts in each case were similar to those in M s. Stonemann Marble Industries Vs.
15 16 of 2003.
29,40,000/ Rs.
As afore mentioned, the High Court has, vide the impugned orders, rejected the applications filed by the Revenue on the ground that numberquestion of law arose from the orders of the Tribunal.
42,84,000/ imposed under Section 125 by the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva and reducing it to Rs.
4,00,000/ to Rs.
25,00,000/ and Rs.
7,00,000/ and with penalties of Rs.
Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an application under Section 130A of the Act, stating that the following questions of law arose out of the orders of the Tribunal Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law reducing the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 from Rs.1.01 Crores to Rs.
Commissioner of Customs Order No.
7,00,000/ and penalty from Rs.
1.01 crores and Rs.
2,00,000/ respectively without examining the facts of the case?
C/1042/201 Mum by following its earlier orders in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries.
7,50,000/ and Rs.
42,84,000/ to Rs.
2,00,000/ in Appeal No.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in intervening with the redemption fines of Rs.
1 The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with numberice of an order under section 129B passed before the 1st day of July, 2003 number being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment , by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal.
4,00,000/ imposed under Section 112a by the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva reducing them to Rs.
Hence, the present appeals by the Revenue.
The respondents importers were engaged in the business of import of rough marble blocks, classifiable under sub heading 2515.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, from various companyntries such as Italy, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Spain, China, Greece etc.
7,50,000/ in Appeal No.
However, to appreciate the companytroversy involved, a brief reference to the facts in C.A. Nos.4371 4383 of 2004, as being illustrative, would suffice.
CI/424 25/WZB/2002 dated 30th January, 2002 , and therefore, the redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 20 and 5 of the CIF value respectively.
C/1030/01 Mum and in reducing the redemption fine from Rs.
