2015 (12) TMI 860 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty - 100% EOU erroneously availed the Benefit of Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dt. 31/03/2003 - Held that - There is no contravention by the respondents inasmuch as claiming of an exemption notification at the time of import of the goods cannot be held to be with any mala fides. If the notification was not available to the respondents, the Customs officer was within his right to deny the same at the time of import itself. However the respondents were allowed to clear the goods under the claim of notification. As such, we find force in the reasoning of the Commissioner that it is not a case of any mala fide requiring confiscation of goods or imposing any penalties. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Disposition of appeals against Commissioner's orders regarding exemption notification for imported capital goods for a 100% EOU, non-imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner, and Revenue's appeal against the same.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, the appeals filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's orders were disposed of collectively due to identical issues. The case involved a 100% EOU that imported capital goods under a specific exemption notification. The Revenue later contested the eligibility for the exemption, leading to demands being paid by the respondents along with interest. The Commissioner, considering the voluntary payment of duty and interest, decided against confiscating the goods or imposing penalties. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing for the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the respondents' claim under the exemption notification was not made with any mala fides, and the Customs officer had the authority to deny the claim during import if deemed necessary. However, since the goods were cleared under the claim of notification, the Commissioner's lenient view was upheld, emphasizing no mala fide intent for confiscation or penalties. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case involving Robert Bosch India Ltd., where the Revenue's appeal was rejected under comparable circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and rejected them accordingly.