9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called accessories. The decision of Banco Products India Ltd. [ 2009 (2) TMI 101 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is different sides of facts. In the said case the goods in dispute were not essential ingredients of the final product. Penalty - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- There was no mis-declaration of description. He argued that in these circumstances, penalty should not be imposed. We find that penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed under section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been also imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice has been issued on 13.04.2018 whereas, the bill of entries are dated 26.07.2016 to 13.08.2016. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (NT) dated 24.12.2008, whereby abatement has been provided in respect of goods covered by MRP. This bill of entry filed by the appellant was recalled for amendment under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and reassessment under section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The bill of entry was thereafter, reassessed and countervailing duty was demanded on the basis of MRP. After noticing the above, the revenue sought reassessment of similar bill of entries cleared by the appellant in the past without declaring the MRP. Accordingly, the past bills of entries were sought to be reassessed and a demand of Customs duty was raised by the appellant. The provisions for demanding interest and penalty were also invoked. The Learned Counsel for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal for confiscation could have been made. 2.4 The Learned Counsel further argued that for penalty section 114(AA) has been invoked. The argued that the said section applies only when a person "knowingly or intentionally" makes a false declaration. The learned Counsel argued that mere non-mention of MRP based assessment for the purpose of CVD cannot be called mis-declaration within the meaning of said section. 2.5 The Learned Counsel further argued that the goods imported by them are accessories and not parts. They relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Banco Products Ltd. 2009 in 25 ALD 636. 3. The Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 4. We are considered rival submission. We find that the issue pertains to import of fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no mis-declaration in description of goods or classification. This show cause notice was issued after obtaining MRP from the importer. The Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the goods are accessories and not parts. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Banco Products India Pvt. Ltd. This argument was that accessories will not be covered under Sr. No. 108 of notification no. 49/2008 CE (NT) and therefore, MRP based assessment cannot be applied on passed imports made by the appellant. On perusal of the nature of goods show that radiator, evaporator, condenser or compressor or all essential ingredients refrigeration system and can by no means the called accessories. The decision of Banco Products India Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
