9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 5 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty - Generalia specialibus non derogant - levy of special penalty over general penalty - scope of provisions of Section 114A and provisions of Section 112 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - As per proviso under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty could not be imposed under this section if the same has been imposed under Section 112(a). Since in his order, the Commissioner has held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) of the Customs Act and confiscated them and allowed them to be released on redemption fine, it is found that the Commissioner perfectly justified in imposing penalty under Section 112(a) on the respondent. Once he has imposed penalty under Section 112(a), in view of the proviso, penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods 2. Redemption of seized goods 3. Confiscation of goods cleared without payment of duty 4. Duty liability determination 5. Imposition of penalties under various sections 6. Failure to serve notice on respondent 7. Interpretation of Sections 112(a) and 114A Confiscation of Seized Goods: The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of seized Stainless Steel Coils/Sheets and allowed redemption upon payment of a fine. The goods were valued at Rs. 82,19,423.64 and were seized from multiple containers under the Customs Act, 1962. Redemption of Seized Goods: The Commissioner allowed redemption of the seized goods valued at Rs. 22,60,75,827.36, which were cleared without payment of duty under Advance Licences. A redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,00,000 was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Confiscation of Goods Cleared Without Payment of Duty: The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods cleared without payment of duty, valued at Rs. 22,60,75,827.36, under the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were allowed to be cleared under bonds upon payment of a redemption fine. Duty Liability Determination: The duty liability of the Noticee was determined to be Rs. 8,66,16,058.44, and the Commissioner ordered its recovery along with interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. Imposition of Penalties: Penalties were imposed on M/s Aiges India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, penalties were imposed on the directors of the company, Shri Viral K Mehta and Shri Devendu K. Mehta, under the same section. Failure to Serve Notice on Respondent: Despite multiple attempts to serve notice on the respondent, the attempts were unsuccessful, and the respondent did not respond to the notices. The appeal was considered for hearing in accordance with Rule 21 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Interpretation of Sections 112(a) and 114A: The Revenue appealed against the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) instead of Section 114A. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that once a penalty is imposed under Section 112(a), penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed as per the proviso of Section 114A. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merits in it and upholding the Commissioner's order. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions governing confiscation, redemption, duty liability determination, and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, while also addressing the procedural aspects of serving notices and interpreting penalty provisions.
|
