9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for this reason that in the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2015 there is an order appropriating these amounts towards the differential duty and interest. Hence, declaring a wrong classification per se would not amount to collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts and other than mere allegation, the Revenue has not placed on record any supporting document/s nor has it established the existence of collusion, etc. It is the settled position of law that mere acceptance and payment of differential duty would not ipso facto attract any penalty under the statute. Hence, the fact of payment of differential duty along with interest by the appellant and the order of appropriation reflected in the Order-in-Original is a sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be decided is: whether the above penalty imposed on the appellant, as sustained in the First Appeal, is correct or not? 2. Brief facts leading to the present dispute and which are relevant, inter alia, are that the appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry for clearance of goods declared as Engineered Wood Floorings Qak-Earth / Hickory-Clove / Hickory-Pepper , after classifying the same under CTH 44079990; that the above Bill-of-Entry was facilitated by RMS and the appellant paid the duty at the self-assessed rate; that the Revenue alleged to have found during Audit that the imported engineered wood was real wood, which was not one solid piece, but consisted of two or more layers of wood, which were assembled and glued in a cross-ply constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114A read with the provisos thereto. The reasons given by the First Appellate Authority inter alia are that the penalty under Section 114A ibid. should be equivalent to the differential duty along with interest; that in terms of the first proviso, the penalty shall be twenty five per cent of the duty or interest, which works out to Rs.6,32,298/- and that the Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty of only Rs.1,00,000/-, which was against the provisions of Section 114A read with the first proviso. 4. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority, vide Order-in-Original No.764606/2020 dated 08.10.2020 imposed a penalty of Rs.36,97,501/- under Section 114A ibid. on the appellant. The appellant agitated the above imposition of enhanced penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest by the appellant and the order of appropriation reflected in the Order-in-Original is a sufficient ground to disbelieve the mala fides on the part of the appellant. 7. The lower authorities have given much importance to the first proviso to Section 114A ibid.: the first proviso is applicable only if an assessee chooses to avail the benefit of reduced penalty of twenty five per cent, if the duty or interest determined is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, which is not the case of the appellant here, in the case on hand. The first test of collusion, etc., has to be established and only then could the penalty be imposed. Having not satisfactorily established collusion or any wilful mis-statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
