9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and could have objected description declared by the appellant. However, the DGFT also issued the license accepting the description declared by the appellant. In this case there is no mala fide intention, particularly on the part of the present appellant because the issue of classification of goods is a matter of interpretation and the same could have been detected and disputed while issuing the VKGUY license by DGFT. Moreover, in the present case, so far the license has not been cancelled by the DGFT. On this ground alone the penal provision cannot be invoked against the appellant. Levy of penalties u/s 112(a) or under 114AA of CA, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant is not liable for penalty either under Section 112(a) or under 114AA. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Ruchi soya and Shri Nitin Virkar, the present appellant. The adjudicating authority while adjudicating this show cause notice held that the company M/s Ruchi Soya Industries has wrongly secured VKGUY duty paid credit scheme by willful suppression, misstatement misdeclaration. Consequently, deferential demand of customs duty interest and penalties were confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was also imposed upon the appellant under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Dhaval K Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the entire case is based on that the appellant have mis-declared the export goods and obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant was responsible for obtaining the VKGUY license by mis declaring the description of the goods. Therefore, he was rightly imposed with the penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- Munjal Showa Ltd v/s Commissioner of Customs Central Excise reported at 2022-TIOL-82-SC-CUS Nanz Med Science Pharma Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reported at (2023) 11 Centax 355 (S.C.) Sushil Sharma v/s CESTAT reported at 2016 (334) E.L. . 19 (P H) Sushil Sharma reported at 2016 (334) E.L. . A71 (S.C.) 4. I have carefully considered submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
