9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial duty and interest thereof and has been paid of, there being challenge by the appellant in the appeal that portion of the impugned order is upheld. Penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- In the case in hand, there is no dispute as to the fact that appellant themselves have come forward and informed the Department on 22.12.2014 and 24.12.2014 that there was a mis-declaration of the value on the gold jewelry imported and paid of the differential duty along with interest - the explanation put forth on behalf of the appellant that they were confused by the master circular of the Reserve Bank of India is acceptable and the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, and there seems to be no suppression of facts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs under various invoices. After final price of gold jewelry was fixed based on agreed price with the exporter, remittance was paid through banking channels. On 22.12.2014, on being pointed out by their bankers M/s Axis Bank, that there is a difference between the value of the import and the amounts paid for the exports, appellant informed the Customs Department about the difference and paid the differential customs duty along with interest, followed up by a letter dated 24.12.2014 requesting the department not to issue any show cause notice for penalty. Subsequent to such letters, the Revenue Authorities initiated an investigation and various documents like commercial invoices, final invoices etc., were summoned, and subsequent to recordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought condonation from Reserve Bank of India for the lapse and was condoned by the Reserve Bank of India and as confirmed by their bankers Axis Bank to them by letter dated 10.06.2015 with clear instruction that they should follow the given general guidelines strictly. He would submit that penalties imposed under Section 114A and 114AA be set aside as they had themselves come forward and discharged the differential duty on being informed by the bankers. He would submit that judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam Vs. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., [2018 (361) ELT 429 (A.P.)] on more or less similar situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has been paid of, there being challenge by the appellant in the appeal that portion of the impugned order is upheld. 6. Coming to the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, we find the provision of said Section presupposes that there was a short levy, non-levy by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts and has been determined under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and has to be imposed by an equivalent amount of penalty. In the case in hand, there is no dispute as to the fact that appellant themselves have come forward and informed the Department on 22.12.2014 and 24.12.2014 that there was a mis-declaration of the value on the gold jewelry imported and paid of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
