9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under summon was never retracted by the appellant at any point of time before adjudication of the matter. Thus, it cannot be said that the product in question should be classifiable under CTH 76042990, instead of CTH 83021090 of CTA, 1975 - demand not sustainable. Penalty u/s 112(a) of CA - Held that:- Initially, classification of the disputed goods was highly contentious and there were different views within the department, whether to classify the same under Chapter Heading 7604 or 8302 of the CTA, 1975. Thus, under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Act cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty on the appellant No.2, who is the Managing Director of the appellant company - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected and the same was reclassified under CTH 83021090 of CTA, 1975. In respect of imports made through Nhava Sheva, Mumbai, the impugned order has confirmed the differential duty demand of ₹ 1,26,62,564/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant company. Besides, penalty of ₹ 12,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant No.2 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In respect of the imports made through Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, the impugned order has confirmed differential duty demand of ₹ 2,07,047/- along with interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant company. The said order also imposed penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on the appellant No.2. 3. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case. We find that the learned adjudicating authority by referring to the signed catalogue of Aluminium Profiles furnished by the appellant, has recorded specific findings in para 12 at pages 9, 10 and 11 in the impugned order to support the stand of classification of subject goods under CTH 830219090. The appellants have not adduced any material evidence to counter such claim by Revenue. Further, we find that the voluntary statement recorded under summon was never retracted by the appellant at any point of time before adjudication of the matter. Thus, it cannot be said that the product in question should be classifiable under CTH 76042990, instead of CTH 83021090 of CTA, 1975. Hence, we are of the considered view that the adjudged dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
