9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hecks and examination are kept at the minimum, greater care on the part of the appellant was warranted. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in PINE CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [ 1992 (9) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT ] held that the goods are misdeclared, Section 112 gets attracted. This is specially so, when violation are accepted by the concerned party. Accordingly, the penalty under Section112 (a) is sustainable, however, the same is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 112(a) is sustained but stands reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, similarly, the redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/- each on five truck clearing , carrying goods when intercept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed their negligence and took full responsibility to pay fine/penalty and differential duty and waived SCN and personal hearing in the matter. The appellant submitted that incident occurred on account of negligence by junior staff. 5. The appellant deposited the entire amount of liability as adjudged and intimated to the appellant i.e.. i. Differential duty of Rs. 7,06,028/- ii. Redemption Fine of Rs. 10,000,00/- iii. Penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- iv. Redemption Fine on Trucks Rs. 1,75,000/- 5.1 OIO was issued in which it was held that appellant had wilfully mis-declared old and used clothes in the guise of cotton wiper with an intention to evade the customs duty. In that view it was ordered as follows: i. Confiscate 64.280 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly mutilated goods are removed and cleared into DTA. However, due to lack of supervision, the staff at KASEZ, inadvertently, cleared certain quantity of unmutilated clothes in five trucks. Learned adjudicating authority has given no reasons for holding that misdeclaration was wilful and further refrained from imposing penalty under section 114A and learned Commissioner (appeals) has not disputed the said stand of appellant but went on to hold that for liability of redemption fine and penalty no mens rea is required. It is thus established that even according to department there was no wilful misdeclaration resorted to by the appellant; consequently imposition of penalty under section 112(a) is required to be set aside. The appellant in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejudice to the aforesaid submissions, considering the mitigating factors as submitted herein above; reduction in redemption fine to the minimum would be just and fair. 9. As against this, learned AR justified levy of penalty and redemption fine on the basis of detailed reasoning given in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). He placed reliance on various rulings to emphasize the point that once the goods are misdeclared and become liable to confiscation, penalty under Section 112 becomes justified. He placed reliance in this regard of 1993 (67) E.L.T 25 (S.C.) in the of PINE CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS has also on VARSHA PLASTICS PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA as reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. (193) (S.C.) as well as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
