2015 (12) TMI 861 - AT - Customs

Evasion of education cess - Malafide intention - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Appellant paid the tax on G.I. wires by filing an appropriate bill of entry and paid the duty as assessed by the Assessing Officer. However, later it was found that the amount of education cess was not paid by the appellant and a show cause notice was issued. The appellant properly paid the duty demanded alongwith interest. In a case of assessment over a bill of entry, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to properly assess the duty and onus cannot be shifted to the appellant for not calculating the correct rate of duty. Appellant promptly paid the entire amount of duty demanded alongwith interest. Under the present factual matrix, it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 14 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for non-payment of education cess on imported goods.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal upholding an order-in-original related to the non-payment of education cess on imported G.I. wire. The appellant argued that there was no malicious intent and promptly paid the shortfall along with interest upon being informed. The Revenue contended that the duty was the appellant's responsibility, and defended the lower authority's decision.

The appellant had paid the assessed duty on the G.I. wires but omitted the education cess amount. After a show cause notice, the appellant paid the due amount along with interest. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer should have correctly assessed the duty, and the appellant should not bear the onus for any miscalculation. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal found no grounds for imposing a penalty under Section 14 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appeal regarding the penalty imposition was allowed.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed for non-payment of education cess on the imported goods. The decision highlighted the Assessing Officer's responsibility for accurate duty assessment and absolved the appellant of penalty liability due to the prompt payment of the outstanding amount upon notification.