2017 (11) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Penalty - Exemption of SAD - N/N. 20/2006/Custom dated 01.03.2006 and N/N. 21/12/Custom dated 17.03.2012 - Held that - the Bill of Entry in this case was filed on 31.03.2011 and the appellant was not aware of the withdrawal of the exemption at that time, and therefore I am of the opinion that there was no intention to evade as he has paid the duty along with interest - imposition of penalty is not warranted - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of exemption claim for special additional duty.
2. Interpretation of law regarding exemption notification.
3. Applicability of penalty for duty evasion.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore challenged the rejection of the appellant's claim for exemption of special additional duty on imported goods. The appellant had imported goods during March-April 2011 under specific notifications but was found to have wrongly claimed exemption by the Intelligence department. A show cause notice was issued, and after due process, duty along with interest was confirmed and paid by the appellant. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order misinterpreted facts and law. It was contended that the appellant was unaware of the amendment removing the exemption, as they filed the Bill of Entry before the amendment came into force. The counsel emphasized that duty was paid with interest before the adjudication order, indicating no intention to evade payment. Legal precedents, including the Hindustan Steel case, were cited to support the argument. Additionally, reference was made to a Tribunal decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Amrit Corp. Ltd.

After reviewing submissions and evidence, the Tribunal noted that the Bill of Entry was filed before the exemption withdrawal, indicating no intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that penalty imposition was unwarranted. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, with any consequential benefits to be provided. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on a specified date.