9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 98 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty - appellant herein had abetted mis-declaration of the vehicle inasmuch as the manufacturing date - import of car - Held that - penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained for the simple reason that demand of duty and the confiscation of the vehicle is not sustainable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. - appeal is allowed and the penalty imposed is set aside. - Decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
- Whether penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant is correct or not. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty Imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 The appeal challenged the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty's imposability hinges on whether the demand of duty will survive. He pointed out that the show cause notice, issued for undervaluation of a car imported in 2003, was beyond the five-year limit as per Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The departmental representative alleged that the appellant abetted mis-declaration to evade duty, a point not raised earlier. The tribunal noted that the demand of differential duty, leading to the penalty, falls under Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that penalties under the Act can be challenged if the demand of duty itself is incorrect. Issue 2: Time Limit for Demand of Duty The tribunal observed that the bill of entry for the imported car was assessed in 2003, with duty paid the same day. Despite allegations of misstatement and duty evasion, the show cause notice issued in 2010 exceeded the five-year limit specified in Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. This section allows duty demands beyond the normal period but within five years of the relevant date, which, in this case, was the date of duty payment in 2003. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot stand due to the unsustainable demand of duty and confiscation of the vehicle as per the Act. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
