2016 (11) TMI 90 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of penalties - penalties imposed upto the range of about 44% & 50% - duty drawback - Held that - The Revenue has failed to give substantial reasoning that why this penalty has to be enhanced to the range of 70 to 100%, when the demand of undue benefits of draw-back alongwith the interest has already been confirmed for recovery by the impugned order. The Revenue has cited certain case-laws but in no case law the penalty imposed by the lower Revenue Authorities has been enhanced by the Appellate Authority. Further, we do not find enough reasons to enhance the penalties which have been imposed by the impugned order. Therefore, the Revenue s appeal for enhancing the penalties against the appellants fails - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty enhancement for fraudulent drawback availed by appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal regarding penalties imposed on two proprietors of firms for fraudulently availing drawback amounts. The Revenue sought enhancement of penalties, arguing that the gravity of the offense warranted higher penalties. The appellants, represented by an advocate, contended that financial difficulties prevented them from making pre-deposits, leading to appeal dismissals. They emphasized their genuine financial struggles and legitimate income tax assessments. The tribunal carefully considered both parties' submissions and relevant case laws.

The Revenue alleged that the appellants engaged in forgery and fraud to claim ineligible drawback and DEPB benefits through over-valued exports. The impugned order found the firms had fraudulently obtained significant amounts of ineligible drawback. Penalties of ?30.00 Lakhs and ?50.00 Lakhs were imposed on the proprietors of the respective firms. The tribunal noted that the penalties imposed were about 44% to 50% of the undue benefits claimed, falling short of the Revenue's suggested 70% to 100% range. The Revenue failed to provide substantial reasoning for the proposed penalty enhancement, especially considering the confirmed demand for recovery of the undue benefits and interest. Additionally, no precedent was cited where penalties were enhanced by the appellate authority based on the Revenue's arguments. Consequently, the tribunal found insufficient grounds to increase the penalties as imposed in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the impugned order's penalties on the appellants, finding no justification for penalty enhancement. The Revenue's appeal for increased penalties was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced on September 12, 2016.