9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge against penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 for fabric shortage; Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority; Penalty imposition based on payment timing; Validity of penalty reduction.
Analysis: 1. Challenge against Penalty under Section 114A: The appeal was filed by M/s. Harrods Garments contesting the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 amounting to Rs. 7,04,101/- due to the shortage of 20,248 Sq.Mts. of 100% Polyester fabrics. The appellant admitted to selling the fabrics without paying the duty, and the buyer also acknowledged purchasing them. The duty demand of Rs. 1,04,101/- was confirmed, which had already been paid by the appellant. 2. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority: The appellant's counsel argued that the jurisdiction of the original Adjudicating Authority to decide the case was challenged but not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Adjudicating Authority had the power to adjudicate the case concerning the clandestine removal from a 100% EOU, which is a customs bonded warehouse. The Tribunal's judgment in a similar case supported the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in such matters. 3. Penalty Imposition based on Payment Timing: The debate on the penalty imposition revolved around the timing of payment. The Department argued that the penalty should not be reduced based on a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which stated that unless duty, interest, and 25% of the duty as penalty were deposited within a month of the adjudication order, the penalty should be 100% of the duty under Section 11AC. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that if duty is paid before adjudication, the penalty under Section 11AC should be 25%. In this case, since duty was paid before the adjudication order, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the total duty. 4. Validity of Penalty Reduction: The Tribunal found that the arguments challenging the jurisdiction were not valid, as the Adjudicating Authority had already addressed this issue. The demand was appropriately raised under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 28, due to the clandestine removal from the customs bonded warehouse. The penalty imposed by the Original Authority and confirmed by the appellate authority was deemed appropriate, but it was reduced to 25% of the total duty since duty had been paid before the adjudication order. The liability for interest payment was upheld, and the appeal was allowed only to the extent of reducing the penalty to 25% of the duty demanded. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad upheld the penalty reduction to 25% of the duty demanded while confirming the remaining aspects of the orders under challenge, emphasizing the importance of timely duty payment and the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in cases of clandestine removal from customs bonded warehouses.
|
