9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value furnished by the supplier – Held that appellant contention was correct and penalty u/s 112of C.A.,1962 set aside X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady paid the anti-dumping duty on the consignment. 3. In the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has found that mens rea was not essential for imposing penalty on a person under taxation laws. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin v. CIT [AIR 1989 S.C. 1671] in support of the above observation. He found that in the instant case the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. She also relied on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Samsung Electronics (I) Information & Tele. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 220 (Tri.-Del.) in support of the same point. In the said decision, the Tribunal had decided that when the importer had declared the value furnished by the supplier and the department had apprised a higher value misdeclaration under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty for breach of taxation laws. This finding is contrary to the ratio of the various decisions of the Tribunal cited by learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the said decisions a finding of misdeclaration inviting mischief of Section 111(m) is not justified in the instant case. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellants under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
