9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y been paid. However, even taking into consideration the violation of the conditions of the notification - the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the penalty u/r 25 to ₹ 1,00,000/-, without disturbing the confirmation of duty payment and interest thereon. Appeal allowed in part. - E/00525/2008 - 41813/2017 - Dated:- 11-8-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant - Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnoose, Adv. For the Respondent - Shri B. Balamurugan, JC (AR) ORDER Per: Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Mobile Phones, Parts of Mobile Phones and Networking equipments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared into DTA if the finished goods are either non-excisable or leviable to nil rate of duty of Customs or nil additional duty leviable under Customs Tariff Act read with exemption notification. The Tariff entry under 85171210 exempts Mobile Phones from payment of Customs duty at the time of import. As per Notification No.21/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 and No.39/2005-Cusu dated 02.09.2005, parts and accessories of cellular phones are also exempted from payment of Customs duty and CVD at the time of import. Therefore, it appeared that appellants had wrongly availed exemption by contravening the conditions in the notification and were liable to pay Customs Duty and Excise Duty in regard to the goods. 2. After due process of law, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. However, the adjudicating Commissioner had imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/-, which is without legal basis and thus requires interference. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the penalty under section 117 is required to be reduced to ₹ 10,000/-, which we hereby do. 6. Similarly, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 is ₹ 3,00,000/-. The appellants contend that there was no malafide intention to evade payment of duty and that the duty along with interest has already been paid. However, even taking into consideration the violation of the conditions of the notification, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the penalty under Rule 25 to ₹ 1,00,000/-, wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
