9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs are imported from Myonic GmbH, Germany. They imported two consignments in October and December 2013 and cleared the same on payment of Customs duty. The third consignment of 1830 Nos. of the said goods was imported vide Invoice No.93038104, dt. 02.01.2014. The dispute relates to these three Bills of Entry. The last Bill of Entry is referred to as live Bill of Entry for the sake of convenience. It is the case of the appellants that they filed live Bill of Entry and declared the value basing upon the invoice routed through their bank. Later, it came to the notice of the Department that the package showed 5% commission payable to the local agent in India. The department was of the view that this 5% agency commission should also be inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) and by order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this apeal challenging the order of penalty imposed under sections 114A and 114AA of Customs Act 1962 and also the redemption fine of One Lakh rupees imposed. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri R. Muralidhar submitted that the appellant had declared the value of the consignment based upon the invoice routed through their bankers. The non inclusion of 5% agency commission noted on the packing of the consignment was only a bonafide mistake. It was submitted by him that for the live bill of entry, the amount of duty which is short paid would be only Rs. 47624/-. Similarly, the short payment with regard to the earlier two consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty for all the three consignments is only Rs. 99,543/- and the redemption fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh imposed for the live consignment alone is highly harsh. Further that the penalties imposed are very high. Although the adjudicating authority gave the benefit of 25% reduced penalty, in fact he has appropriated the entire penalty which was paid by appellants even before passing of the adjudication order. Therefore, the appellant has been deprived of the benefit of the reduced penalty. Again, when penalty under section 114A is imposed, the adjudicating authority ought not to have further imposed penalty under section 114AA. That the ingredients of section 114AA are not at all attracted in the case. The Ld. Counsel prayed for setting aside the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 114AA. As correctly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for appellant, on taking the calculations of the short paid duty, as well as permissible CENVAT credit on them, the balance duty amount in all the three cases would be very nominal compared to the customs duty that has been paid by the appellant. The appellants have put forward explanation to the effect that it was a bonafide mistake on their part in not including the agency commission in the value of the consignment. They have filed bill of entry upon the invoice routed through their bank given by the overseas suppliers which did not include the 5% agency commission. That this has come to their notice only when it was brought out by the custom authorities. It is also submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
