9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This section also has an inbuilt limitation. Beyond the period of limitation although the charge would continue, Revenue will no longer have the remedy to recover the duties short paid. In the normal course, the limitation is of one year - In this case, although the Commissioner found that there was no collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the respondent had fairly conceded the charge of duty and agreed to pay the same along with interest. It is for this reason, that the demand was confirmed for the extended period and not because any evidence that these factors were present. Insofar as section114A is concerned, it pertains to penalty and not a charge. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed when it has been explicitly recorded that there was no collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts which are essential to impose penalty under section 114A. Confiscation of the goods under section 111(m) - HELD THAT:- The respondent did not contest the imposition of penalty and has already been paid the same. There are no ground to order confiscation of the goods which were not available. Holding that the goods were liable for confiscation under section 111(m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Revenue is aggrieved by the Commissioner not holding the goods liable for confiscation under 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 Act and not imposing penalties under sections 114A under and 114AA. 3. We have heard learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 4. Learned authorized representative submits that the respondent had imported Narrow Woven Fabric Webbing for manufacture of safety seat belts of cars and mis-classified it under Customs Tariff Item CTI 87082100 instead of classifying it under CTI 58063200. He further submits the same respondent had also imported the same goods from Thailand and in those Bill of Entry the classification was correctly made under CTI 58063200 and claimed free trade agreement Exemption under Notification No. 46/2011. However, when the goods were imported from Korean Republic where the exemption notification was not available, the appellant had mis-classified them under CTI 8708 2100. The show cause notice SCN dated 23/04/2019 was issued after the wrong classification was discovered during post clearance audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of a concession made by the respondent for extended period of limitation. There is no finding anywhere in the impugned order that the Commissioner had found evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. While the respondent had conceded to pay duty and interest, it does not mean that there was collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Therefore, there is no case to impose penalty under section 114A. 9. As far as the liability of goods for confiscation under section 111(m) is concerned, he submits that although it was not explicitly mentioned that the goods were liable for confiscation under section 111(m), it is evident from the impugned order that the Commissioner had found so and, accordingly, he imposed penalty under section 112. Insofar as the confiscation is concerned, it has been explicitly mentioned in the impugned order that the goods were not confiscated for the reason that the goods had already been cleared and would not available. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order even on this point. 10. Insofar as the penalty under section 114AA is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submits that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a time barred debt. Such debts cannot be recovered by suing but if a person repays the debt it can be appropriated. In this case, although the Commissioner found that there was no collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the respondent had fairly conceded the charge of duty and agreed to pay the same along with interest. It is for this reason, that the demand was confirmed for the extended period and not because any evidence that these factors were present. Insofar as section114A is concerned, it pertains to penalty and not a charge. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed when it has been explicitly recorded that there was no collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts which are essential to impose penalty under section 114A. We have also gone through the records of the case and find no evidence of any of these three elements in the SCN or in the impugned order. 14. Insofar as the confiscation of the goods under section 111(m) is concerned, the Commissioner has recorded that the goods were not confiscated because they were not available for confiscation. However, he imposed penalty under section 112 which is imposable if the goods are liable for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
