9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B/E under the provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also extended the benefit of exemption N/N. 104/94 Custom dated 16.03.2004. The Commissioner (A) has rightly observed that there is no revenue loss in the present case and it was only a procedural infraction which was corrected by the Additional Commissioner under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/20298/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21040/2018 - Dated:- 30-7-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Pakshirajan, AR For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per S.S GARG The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 111 then it is mandatory on the adjudicating authority to impose redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (A) while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that the Additional Commissioner has allowed the amendment of the B/E dated 05.05.2016 to the extent of inclusion of two Alkyl Tainers under the provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also extended the benefit of exemption Notification No. 104/94 Custom dated 16.03.2004. The Commissioner (A) has further observed that the importer himself brought the error to the notice of the Department and sought correction; therefore, there was no mala fide intention of the importer to evade payment of tax. 4. Heard the learned AR, none is present on behalf of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustom dated 16.03.2004. Further, I find that the Commissioner (A) has rightly observed that there is no revenue loss in the present case and it was only a procedural infraction which was corrected by the Additional Commissioner under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the Commissioner (A) has also observed that the importer is entitle to the exemption from duty in support re-usable, durable Tainers to be re-exported as held by the Additional Commissioner and not challenged by the Department before the Commissioner. The Commissioner (A) has relied upon the decision in the case of Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994(74) ELT 873 wherein it is held that penalty not imposable for bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
