Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 832 - CESTAT MUMBAIImposition of penalties u/s 114A or 114AA of the CA, 1962 - difference in valuation - wilful suppression of facts and misstatement or not? - Held that: - though the respondent has not declared the fact from the department that they are 100% subsidiary of the supplier of the cranes and the goods i.e. cranes were meant only as transfer of assets, the acceptance of the fact that the goods are liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) of the CA, 1962, he imposed penalty on the respondent u/s 112(a) of the CA. The adjudicating authority has quite correctly held in para 51 and 52 that penalty u/s 114A of the CA, 1962 on the respondent is not levied as he has levied the penalty on the respondent u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - also, Revenue in this appeal have not brought out any factual position that there was wilful suppression of facts and misstatement for imposition of penalties u/s 114A or 114AA of the CA, 1962 - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|