9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/00358/2012 - Final Order No. 42080/2018 - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per P. Dinesha, The assessee appellant is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The appellant had imported binders with different nomenclatures by classifying them under 39039090. The appellant was put on Show Cause Notice by Revenue inter alia alleging that the goods imported by them should be reclassified under 40021100 of the 1st Schedule to the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Commissioner, however, vide Order-in-Original dt. 31.12.2009 confirmed the propositions made by him in the Show Cause Notice. He also charged interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 which was adjusted out of the duty and interest paid by the assessee, apart from levying a penalty of ₹ 21,74,398/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, who, vide impugned order dt. 29.08.2012 confirmed the findings of the adjudicating authority but, however, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the penalty under Section 114A of the Act at 25% of the duty. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this forum. 2. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the issuance of Show Cause Notice, a lenient view may be taken with respect to the levy of penalty by the lower authorities. 4. Per contra , the Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities and contended that the assessee had not made out a case for deleting the penalty. 5. We have considered the rival contentions. 6.1 The adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original clearly records the bona fide mistake in the classification of the appellant, who went by the word copolymer . It was also not disputed by the Revenue that the word copolymer is used with reference to Styrene Butadiene Copolymer which was classified under chapter 39. When a bona fide mistake was admitted right at the initial stage, we have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
