Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 1054

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is liable to pay the duty, as determined under subsection (8) of Section 28 ibid, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined. However, the first proviso appended to Section 114A ibid, considers for payment of 25% of determined amount of duty, in the eventuality where such duty is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. In the present case, payment of the disputed duty amount along with interest is not in question inasmuch as such amount was paid by the appellants during the course of investigation, and the same has also been appropriated in the adjudication order. Further, it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant M/s Zuari Structural Works Engineers had not paid 25% of penalty w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y - HELD THAT:- The appellant herein is a high sea s purchaser of the goods and filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods from the customs custody. Since,all the related documents were submitted at the time of assessment of the goods in question, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 111(m) ibid have been contravened, inasmuch as there is no mis-declaration of value and also acknowledging the fact that appellant should not be held responsible for mis-declaration of goods and confiscation of the goods, the original authority had rightly imposed penalty on M/s. Mallesh Co. by invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) ibid. Since, the Department has recognized M/s. Mallesh Co.,as High Sea seller and a distinct person i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Section 111(m) ibid and also benefit provided under the first proviso to Section 114A ibid should be available inasmuch as the appellant M/s. Zuari Structural Works Engineers had paid the entire duty amount along with interest during the course of adjudication proceedings and also paid 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days from the date of the adjudication order. The appellant also submitted that since the reduced amount of penalty attributable to the duty determined has been paid within the prescribed time limit, the requirements of Section 114A ibid was duly complied with and thus, the appellant was not required to pay any further amount for resolving the present dispute. The other appellant Shri Gurudas Kamat has stated that sinc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellants has stated that the reduced penalty amount was deposited on 18.01.2013. Since the adjudication order was passed on 27.12.2012 and thereafter, within one month s time the penalty amount of 25% of the adjudged duty and interest was paid by the appellants, we are of the considered view that as per requirement of first proviso appended to Section 114A ibid, no subsequent proceedings shall be initiated by the Department for confirmation of the adjudged demand of penalty equal to the adjudged amount of duty and interest confirmed in the adjudication order. Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent it has upheld confirmation of the penalty amount equal to the adjudged amount of duty and interest on the appellant M/s Zuari Structural W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id have been contravened, inasmuch as there is no mis-declaration of value and also acknowledging the fact that appellant should not be held responsible for mis-declaration of goods and confiscation of the goods, the original authority had rightly imposed penalty on M/s. Mallesh Co. by invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) ibid. Since, the Department has recognized M/s. Mallesh Co.,as High Sea seller and a distinct person in the transaction between the overseas seller and the appellant herein, in our considered view the appellant being the high sea s purchaser cannot be penalized for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) ibid. Therefore, the impugned order imposing redemption fine of Rs. 3,03,000/- on the appellant is set a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates