9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilk based drink beverages including Jumpin, Sofit etc. The appellant imported "Aseptic Packaging Material" for packing the material for their manufactured products under IEC No. 0303014423. 2. For the purposes of manufacturing their products, the appellant started procuring the said Aseptic Packaging Material from Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., in India who classified the product under tariff heading 48115910. It was procured from them for more than 20 years without any dispute in the classification of the product. 3. Subsequently, to meet the increase in demand for its products and further business, the appellant started importing the said packaging material from China. That for procuring the said Aseptic Packaging Material, samples were sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Bills of Entries were assessed and cleared under the RMS procedure followed by Customs. 6. It is again relevant to state that the appellant till this time also was unaware of two varieties of Aseptic Packaging Material; "bleached‟ and "unbleached‟ and the subject goods being bleached were classifiable under chapter heading 48115110, applicable for Bleached Aseptic Packaging Material and not entitled for the benefit of concessional CVD. It is humbly submitted that for the purposes of the operation and usage of the subject goods by the appellant, there was no distinction between bleached and unbleached materials and because the difference could not be ascertained through visual examination, appellant adopted the undisputed c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be noted that the said action of paying differential duty was voluntary and there was no demand from the department till such time. Further, it was never the intent of the appellant to evade the duty and had acted to adopt the classification only under its bonafide belief. It is humbly submitted that for the purposes of the operation and usage of the subject goods by the appellant, there was no distinction between bleached and unbleached materials and because the difference could not be ascertained through visual examination. The above sequence of events would vouch the law abiding nature of the appellant and their bonafides. 10. The appellant vide Challan No. 0733/22/03/2017/01 dated 22.03.2017 paid differential custom duty of Rs. 1,75,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vading proper payment of custom duties. The notice also proposed to demand differential customs duties of Rs. 1,59,24,081/- with respect to 30 bills of entries alongwith interest under Section 28 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and proposing to impose penalty under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Act. Further, it proposed to appropriate the differential custom duties amount paid by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 1,59,24,081/- and Rs. 17,08,181/- against total interest payable. 13. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed classification by Revenue was confirmed. Further, the differential duty of Rs. 1,59,24,081/- was confirmed and also appropriated from the pre-deposit made alongwith interest before issue of show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Revenue on being pointed out, and have also deposited the differential duty with interest much prior to issue of show cause notice. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice is wholly uncalled for as there has been no pending dispute for adjudication. Learned Counsel also draws our attention to the letter of appellant dated 17.04.2017 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of the Division, giving intimation of the deposit of differential duty alongwith interest, specifically stating therein as the appellant have deposited the differential duty/ CVD alongwith interest, hence, the issue may be treated as closed. Learned Counsel also draw our attention to their letter dated 16.01.2017 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment to dispute the classification as bills of entry is finally assessed by the Department, and there is no case of any deliberate mischief or malafide on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside of the penalty imposed. 16. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue supports the impugned order. He further stated that the appellant company is a multinational and they have the advice of competent professional available. Thus, such type of error in classification on their part appears to be with a malafide design to avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty, which was not available under the right classification. 17. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that admittedly appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
