9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1509 - AT - CustomsRectification of mistake - though the Ld. Commissioner has given correct findings in the impugned order but made serious error inasmuch as he has not imposed penalty under Section 114A and wrongly mentioned the Section 27AB for charging interest instead of Section 28AB - Held that - From the comparison of operative portion of the order and the findings reproduced above, it is apparent that though Ld. Commissioner has given correct findings in above para regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 114A and for charging the interest under Section 28AB in the operative portion of the order, penalty under Section 114A was not imposed and for charging interest. wrong Section 27AB was mentioned instead of correct Section 28AB. Therefore we are of the view that there is apparent and Serious error made by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold that respondent is liable for penalty equal to custom duty under Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962 and respondent is also liable for payment of interest in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Custom Duty of ₹ 1,39,93,825/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Imposition of Customs duty on imported capital goods 2. Imposition of Central Excise duty on indigenous capital goods 3. Liability for payment of interest 4. Imposition of penalties under different sections of Customs Act and Central Excise Act 5. Correctness of the Commissioner's order Imposition of Customs duty on imported capital goods: The appeal was filed against the Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand for Customs duty on imported capital goods. The Tribunal held that the demand for Customs duty amounting to ?1,39,93,825 was to be recovered from the company in accordance with relevant notifications and sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had correctly imposed the Customs duty on the imported capital goods. Imposition of Central Excise duty on indigenous capital goods: The Tribunal also confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty of ?58,800 on indigenous capital goods to be recovered from the company as per the applicable notification and section of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the imposition of Central Excise duty on the indigenous capital goods. Liability for payment of interest: The Tribunal determined that the company was liable to pay interest at the appropriate rate on the confirmed amounts of Customs and Central Excise duty. The interest was to be levied in accordance with the provisions of Section 27AB of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal affirmed the liability of the company to pay interest on the duty amounts. Imposition of penalties under different sections: Penalties were imposed on the company and an individual under various sections of the Customs Act and Central Excise Act. The Tribunal upheld the penalties of ?50,00,000 under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the company, ?20,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Act on the company, and ?50,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the individual. The Tribunal found the penalties imposed to be appropriate based on the violations committed. Correctness of the Commissioner's order: The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order, questioning the correctness of not imposing penalty under Section 114A and citing an incorrect section for charging interest. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had erred in not imposing penalty under Section 114A and mentioning the wrong section for charging interest. The Tribunal rectified the errors and held the company liable for penalty equal to the Customs duty under Section 11A of the Customs Act and for payment of interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act on the Customs duty amount. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved in the case comprehensively, outlining the Tribunal's decisions and reasoning for each aspect of the appeal.
|
