9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department only when detailed investigations were undertaken by the department. In view of the above having accepted mis-declaration and paid the entire amount of duty along with interest and the reduced penalty, the appellant cannot now claim that there was no mis-declaration. Therefore, the duty amount along with interest and reduced penalty already paid stands confirmed. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 read with Notification No.189/2009-Cus (N.T.) dated 31/12/2009. The Commissioner in the impugned order has clearly stated that the benefit of the above Notification was not part of the show-cause notice and hence, it is an afterthought. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri K. Parameswaran, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri K.A. Jathin, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant Shri. Syed Ajmal Pasha is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 465/2016 dated 30.6.2016. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant, Proprietor of M/s. Royal Timbers, filed the Bill of Entry 3985630 dated 4.12.2013 for the clearance of Merbau Sawn Timber Blocks claiming the benefit of Notification No.53/2011-Cus. dated 1.7.2011. The benefit of this Notification is available only on compliance of the conditions prescribed under the Notification No.43/2011 Cus. dated 01.06.2011 under the Indo-Malaysia Trade Agreement. On verification by the Customs, it was found that the Count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other 8 Bills of Entry was not in order. On pointing out by the authorities that the appellant was not eligible for the concessional rate of duty for the live Bill of Entry, immediately the differential duty was paid and as and when the demand was raised for all other Bills of Entry, the entire differential duty was paid including the interest amount of Rs. 1,17,455/-, hence, the question of penalty under Section 114 A did not arise. It is also submitted that 25% of the penalty was paid under protest within 30 days from the date of the order essentially to claim the benefit of reduced penalty. The learned Counsel also submitted that having already imposed equivalent penalty on the M/s. Royal Timbers the question of imposing penalty of Rs.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3985630 dated 04.12.2013, based on the investigation by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), it was noticed that the benefit of Notification No.53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011 was wrongly claimed by producing the Country-of-Origin certificate which was not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the above notification read with Notification No.43/2011-Cus. dated 01/06/2011. The ineligible benefits were also claimed for previous 16 Bills of Entry for the period January 2013 to November 2013, demands against these were also confirmed alleging mis-declaration and suppression of facts. The appellant vide letter dated 20.12.2013 claimed that they had wrongly claimed Notification No. 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011 instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, it is an afterthought. The Commissioner (Appeals) also states that the same cannot be extended as the said certificates were to be produced at the time of clearance and the said certificates are to be issued by the exporting country. Therefore, the question of extending the benefit of a new Notification which was not claimed at the time of filing the Bill of Entry cannot be extended as the same cannot be verified as the goods have already been cleared. 8. The only question to be decided is whether the appellant is liable to pay Rs.45,00,000/- under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (A) has upheld the penalty under Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that both are independent of eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. As such we are of the view that the said appellant is liable for penalty. Inasmuch as, the duty involved in respect of the Bill of Entry filed by them was only to the extent of Rs. 81,000/-, though the other imports made by them were also of different goods i.e. the one declared by them in the first Bill of Entry, we deem it fit to reduce the penalty to Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, as the penalty stands imposed on M/s. Ruby Impex, the imposition of separate penalty on the Proprietor is not called for as the proprietor and the proprietary concern are to be considered as one and the same. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon Shri Kishan Lal Chawla, Proprietor of M/s. Ruby Impex stands set aside . (Emphasis supplied) 9.1 The High Court of Bombay in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
