9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead noted the same on the packages only. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgement in the case of Delphi Automotive Systems Ltd. Vs CC (E), New Delhi [2016 (8) TMI 926 - CESTAT NEW DELHI],where in similar state of facts, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty to ₹ 10,000/-. Following the same, the penalty u/s 114A can be reduced to ₹ 10,000/- - The ingredients of Section 114AA does not stand attracted in the present case. The said section has been wrongly appled by the authorities below - the redemption fine imposed is on higher side. The same can be reduced to ₹ 10,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/30022/2016 - A/30415/2017 - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value was enhanced after assessment by adding 5% agency commission. Verification was done with respect to earlier two consignments imported by appellant of same goods. As they had not included 5% commission in the previous consignments also, appellants were required to pay differential duty after adding 5% agency commission on both earlier consignments. Though the appellants pleaded that it was a genuine mistake on their part, the original authority proceeded to confirm the custom duty to the tune of ₹ 99,543/- on all the three consignments alongwith interest of ₹ 3,249/-. A penalty of ₹ 99,543/- was imposed under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 on all three consignments and a further penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bill of entry. That, the short payment if any by omitting 5% agency commission was very nominal when compared to the duty paid by appellant. That this itself would show that it was not a deliberate act on the part of the appellant. It is further submitted by the Counsel for appellant, that the appellant is availing CENVT credit of the duties paid on inputs. In that case, out of the short paid amount of ₹ 47,624/- in case of live bill of entry, the appellant would be eligible for CENVAT credit to the tune of ₹ 32,681/-. Similarly, in the case of earlier two consignments, although the short paid amount is ₹ 53,914/-, the appellant would be eligible for CENVAT credit of ₹ 36,002/-. That in such a background, the only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the Ld. AR Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that mis-declaration of the value of the consignments by not including 5% agency commission would not have come to light but for the verification made by the department. The appellant has imported two earlier consignments in the similar manner by suppressing the actual value of the consignment. Though the amount of duty short paid is nominal but the intention to evade payment of duty is revealed by mis-declaration of the value of goods. That, therefore, the penalty and redemption fine imposed are legal and appropriate. It is further submitted by the AR that the quantum of redemption fine is correctly arrived as per market price of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission in the value declared in the bill of entry and appellant had paid entire penalty in order to get release of the consignment. 7. Taking into consideration the differential duty involved and the CENVAT credit available for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the redemption fine imposed is on higher side. The same can be reduced to ₹ 10,000/- The facts of the case reveal that the mis-declaration occurred because the overseas supplier did not include 5% agency commission in the invoice and instead noted the same on the packages only. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgement in the case of Delphi Automotive Systems Ltd. Vs CC (E), New Delhi. In similar state of facts, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
