9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and penalty of Rs.13,000/- was imposed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 21.4.07 in respect of the goods covered under the invoice No. 16103 dated 16.4.07 and declared the goods as 2400 pcs. of body lotion, 3750 pcs. of instant conditioner, 4050 pcs. of hair wash. The declared value of the goods was US $ 5773.20 and freight was declared 507 GBP. During examination, it was found that the consignment in question consisted of two packages of total quantity of 12450 pcs instead of 10200 pcs. as declared in the Bill of Entry and total freight paid by the appellant was GBP 1365.05 instead of GBP 507 declared in the Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay Vs. CC reported in1990(47) E.L.T.161(SC)=AIR 1990 SC 1579. The contention is that when there is no mens rea on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty, therefore, imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 5. The Revenue submitted that the appellant had mis-declared the quantity of goods, value of goods and in respect of freight paid by them and the appellant admitted mistake when it was pointed out by the Revenue. The contention is that mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under the Customs Act 1962. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CC Vs. Bansal Industries reported in 2007 (207) ELT 346. The contention is that in this case the Tribunal set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that impugned goods were supplied by mistake by the supplier as the impugned goods were not ordered by the importer and there is no evidence that importer has paid for the impugned goods. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that there was no willful, suppression of facts and the allegation that importer mis-declared the goods with intention to evade payment of duty. This finding was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court held as under :- "We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. It is true that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that it is inclined to accept the reasons given by the assessee that it was the supplier who by mistake loaded tin sheets waste which were not order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that it was the supplier who by mistake loaded tin sheets waste which were not ordered by the assessee, the Tribunal rendered its decision on the basis that the Revenue has not shown that the assessee had willfully suppressed the facts and had misdeclared the goods with intention to evade duty. The order of the Tribunal mainly proceeded on the footing of intention of the assessee to evade duty, which, in our view, is not correct in the matter of breach of a civil obligation attracting levy of penalty. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the question as reframed by us is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The appeal is allowed and the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
