9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, does not appear to be in error of law - Decided against Revenue. - CUSAA 9/2013 & CM APPL. 17056/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr Rupesh Kumar, Mr Aditya Kumar and Mr Pravesh Bahuguna, Advs. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat: (Open Court) 1. The revenue impugns by this appeal an order of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter CESTAT) dated 3.7.2012 made in Custom Appeal No.677/2007. 2. The assessee- Care Foundation had imported a medical equipment and declared it as Da Vinci Surgical System (Endoscope Systern) claiming classification of goods under' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed upon it was dismissed. By the impugned order the penalty imposed upon the Care Foundation under section 114A was cancelled. 4. The revenue claims to be aggrieved by this order to the extent it completely cancelled the penalty. It urges that the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the goods were fully duty paid before the assessment was complete and upon its interpretation of section 28(8) of the Customs Act. The revenue relies upon Section 112. The Tribunal fell into error that penalty imposed under section 114A was not sustainable. 5. The relevant extract of the Tribunal s order discussing the rationale was deletion of the penalty under section 114A is as follows : 18. One of the legal issue (sic) raised is that in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs Act, 1962 any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Act is liable to confiscation. In this, a deliberate action to declare the goods as an endoscopic system, with an intention to claim the exemption, is evident even though there was no such description in the invoice or literature of the manufacturer. The additional description was purposely added. Such mis-declaration made would make the goods liable to confiscation. So we are not able to agree with the argument that the goods were not liable to confiscation. The confiscation is thus upheld. However considering the nature of the equipment to be one used in medical care and also the nature of mis-declaration in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
