2015 (1) TMI 1206 - AT - Customs

Duty demand - enhancement of penalty imposed under Section 114 A - Held that - Section is applicable to a person who is liable to pay the duty OR interest as the case may be, who shall be liable to penalty equal to the duty or interest so determined. The expression used is or , which is disjunctive between duty or interest. Further use of expression as the case may be clearly suggests that the said section is referring to two different persons and situations. One which may be liable to duty and the other which may be liable to interest only and provides that in both the situations, the person liable to duty would be liable to penalty equal to duty and the person liable to interest would be liable to penalty equal to interest. There is no warrant to read or as and . In view of the above I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned orders of Commissioner Appeals - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of three appeals by Revenue.
2. Confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty.
3. Appeal for enhancement of penalty.
4. Interpretation of Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved the disposal of three appeals by the Revenue, all related to the same issue. The original adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of duty, interest, and imposed a penalty on the respondents regarding imported goods. The respondents were given an option to pay the demand within 30 days, with the penalty reduced to 25%. The Revenue filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking an enhancement of the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962, arguing that the penalty should be equivalent to the duty and interest. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this contention, citing a previous decision by the Tribunal in a similar case.

The main issue in the appeals was whether the penalty under Section 114A should be equivalent to the duty or interest. The Tribunal noted that the amount involved was less than Rs. 5,00,000, giving them the option to admit or not admit the appeal. The Tribunal found that the issue had already been decided in a previous case referred to in the judgment. The Tribunal also analyzed the language of Section 114A, highlighting the use of the term "or" which indicates a disjunctive between duty and interest. The section specifies that the penalty should be equal to the duty or interest determined, based on who is liable to pay. This distinction implies that the penalty should be specific to the duty or interest, depending on the situation, and should not be read as a combined penalty for both duty and interest.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, stating that there was no justification to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. The judgment emphasized the specific wording of Section 114A and the separate liabilities for duty and interest, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.