9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Demand of duty and penalty challenged on grounds of merit and limitation. 2. Interpretation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. 4. Requirement of lawful procurement of goods and burden of proof on the appellant. 5. Pre-deposit of penalty amount under Section 129E of the Act. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI heard two applications filed by the appellant, one for waiver of deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty, and the other for out-of-turn disposal of the stay application. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the stay application at that stage after considering arguments from both sides. The matter involved a second round of litigation before the Tribunal, where the Commissioner had demanded duty of over Rs. 11.9 lakhs and imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the demand on merit and limitation grounds, arguing that the larger period of limitation was not applicable as the show-cause notice did not allege suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of duty. Regarding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal found that the goods were not available for confiscation, leading to a stay of recovery of the fine. However, the physical availability of goods for confiscation was deemed immaterial for imposing a penalty under Section 112. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to establish lawful procurement of some goods covered by the Commissioner's order, as no documents proving licit acquisition were produced. Despite these goods not being notified under Section 123 of the Act, the appellant was required to counter smuggling allegations and establish ownership, which they failed to do. Consequently, the Tribunal held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 and imposed a penalty under Section 112, requiring the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 towards penalty under Section 129E of the Act within four weeks. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted waiver and stay of recovery for the duty amount due to the show-cause notice's failure to specifically allege the ingredients of the proviso to Section 28(1). The decision highlighted the importance of lawful procurement of goods, burden of proof on the appellant, and the implications of allegations of smuggling and non-compliance with statutory requirements under the Customs Act.
|
