Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 652 - AT - CustomsBenefit of CVD exemption - Sr. No.88 and Sr. No. 8C(ii) of notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (as amended) - import of Filmtech Membrane (water filter parts) - classified under CTH 84212190 or not? - demand of differential duty alongwith interest and penalty - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- The issue on merits as submitted by the learned Authorized Representative is no longer res integra and covered by the decision in case of PURE & CURE TECHNOLOGY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , NHAVA SHEVA [2018 (12) TMI 617 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that the appellant themselves had admitted that exemption notification to the said product was inserted w.e.f.1.3.2007 mentioning through new Sr. No. 8B where the classification of sub-heading was shown as 842121. Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Once the appellants have paid duty and interest and have admitted their liability they are barred in subsequent proceedings, to claim the benefit of limitation in respect of the amounts so paid - in view of the statement made by the Appellant admitting the differential duty liability in respect of each of 13 Bill of Entries, after making the payment, the appellants are barred from taking any stand contrary to what has admitted by them. The fact that statement has been recorded nearly two months after the act of actual deposit the statement is voluntary, in absence of any retraction of the same - there are no merits in submission made by the Appellant in respect of the differential duty confirmed along with interest. Abatement of duty - Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In terms of this sub section, when the son has admitted duty liability and had paid the same along with the interest due, the proceedings should have been abated against that person. In our view it is not the case of willful misstatement, suppression or mis-declaration, but a case of bonafide error in claiming the benefit of exemption which was not due to them, we do not find any merits in the penal proceedings undertaken against them - Since appellants have clearly and correctly described the imported goods as part of water filter, the error in claiming the benefit of wrong exemption notification cannot be act of deliberate misdeclaration - there are no merits in the order of Commissioner imposing penalty on the appellants under Section 114A. Appeal allowed in part.
|