9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of export and import cargo on behalf of their clients. He filed a Bill of Entry dated 13.9.2011 for clearance of the goods on behalf of their clients M/s Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. The goods were described in the Bill of Entry as Solar Power Generating System Sunny Tripower 17000 TL String Inverter and Solar Power Generating System RS 485 Interface, based on documents provided by the importer. The appellant was under bona fide impression that the goods are telecommunication equipments indicated the classification as CTH 8517 62 90. The importer vide letter dated 16.9.2011 justified their claim for duty free benefit in respect of the importer goods. Thereafter, the said consignment was subjected to first check examination. On first ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. It was also alleged that the importer and the appellant deliberately attempted to clear the goods on payment of zero duty by mis-declaring the goods with the intention to evade payment of duty, thereby making it liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellant appears to be liable for penalty under Section 112(a) & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2 Thereafter, the main Noticee/Importer, M/s Essel Mining and Industries, preferred an application before the Settlement Commission for the settlement of their case. The Settlement Commission vide its order dated 11.12.2014 settled the case in respect of main noticee. 2.3 The show-cause notice was adjudicated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order overlooked the fact that the main noticee in the present case, i.e. the importer M/s Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. had filed an application for settlement of their case before the Settlement Commission, Mumbai Bench. The Settlement Commission vide its final order dated 11.12.2013 did not hold the imported goods liable for confiscation under any provisions of the customs Act and consequently no fine was ordered. In view of this, the learned Commissioner has erred in imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) & Section 114AA of the Act. 3.2 He also relies the decision of this Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2007 (220) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
