TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined by the authority concerned, when there is a mis-declaration the Tribunal is not justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act. Such a mandate under the Statute cannot be given a go-by by the Tribunal - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -II V. Bisht Electronics reported in [2011 (9) TMI 128 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1816 to 1818 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2014 - R. Sudhakar And G. M. Akbar Ali,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. E. Vijayanand Standing Counsel For the Respondents : No appearance - R1, Mr. S. Murugappan - R1 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar,J. ) The above Civ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the above, the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, appeals were preferred by the three importers before the Tribunal, represented by a common counsel and the Tribunal by a common order dated 31.3.2005 confirmed the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in so far as the confiscation for recovery of duty. However, in so far as the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is concerned, in all the three cases, the penalty imposed under Section 114 A was reduced in the following manner: Name Duty Demand penalty imposed penalty reduced KRM International Rs.3,14,732/-Rs.3,14,732/-Rs.50,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression if facts, the person who is liable to pay the duty or interest, as the case may be, as determined under sub-section (8) of section 27 shall, also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty or interest so determined. 8. The issue as to whether penalty can be reduced in any manner came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (Union of India V. Dharamendra Textile Processors). While considering the pari materia provision, namely, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, the Supreme Court held as follows: 26. In Union Budget of 1996-97, Section 11AC of the Act was introduced. It has made the position clear that there is no sco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the several other statutory provisions that came up for consideration in that decision. 25. In the light of the discussion made above it is evident that in both the appeals, orders were passed by the Tribunal on a wrong premise. In both the appeals, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the matters are remitted to the respective Tribunals for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, and in the light of this judgment.... 10. The Delhi High Court had an occasion to consider a similar question of law in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -II V. Bisht Electronics reported in 2014 (300) E.L.T. 336 (Del.). Referring to the above-stated decision of the Supreme Court and the decision r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue. 13. A faint plea was made by Mr. Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in C.M.A.No.1817 of 2007 that since penalty under Section 114A has been levied, no penalty under Section 112a of the Customs Act should be imposed. The assessee is not in appeal before us and also we are not on the issue of Section 112a. Hence, we are not inclined to answer this question. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order: (i) On the question of law raised, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act. (ii) Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 31.3.2005 in sofar as M/s.KRM International Ltd. and M/s.Dhandapani Expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
