9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and on the basis of contemporaneous import proposed enhancement of the value to Rs. 2,90,92,343/-, which the appellant have admitted subject to condition that no show-cause notice shall be issued. Accordingly, they have cleared the goods on re-assessed value and payment of duty thereon. The appellant thereafter challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the assessment and rejected the appeal. Against the Order-in-Appeal, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 607 days. The Tribunal on the ground of delay denied the condonation and consequently appeal was dismissed for delay. Thereafter, a showcause notice was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any evidence that the appellants have suppressed the value, no penalty can be imposed. He also submits that the demand was not determined under Section 28. Therefore, penalty under Section 114A was illegal and incorrect. The enhancement was proposed by the Department and the appellants have accepted and paid the duty. Therefore, once the assessment has been finalized, there is no scope for Department to issue the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice can be issued only if there is short payment or non-payment of customs duty. In that case the duty on the value determined by the Department was paid, therefore, it is not a case of non-payment or short payment of customs duty. Hence, no show-cause notice should have been issued. 2.1 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Bills of Entry itself and duty was paid on the enhanced value, therefore, there was no reason to issue the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was issued only for imposition of penalty under Section 114A. It is observed that the demand was neither raised nor confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in absence of any determination of duty under Section 28(1), penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed. Therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A. 4.1 As regards penalty imposed on Shri Sameer Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, Director of the appellant company under Section 114AA, which reads as under: - "If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
