9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on fine. Since the issue in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appears are being disposed of by the present order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Appeal No. 666/2007 are taken: The facts of the case are that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore on 18.08.2005 conducted a search of their office and at the premises of SSC. 769.50 Kgs of VFY valued at Rs. 1,15,425/- was detained. At the premises of KSC certain documents relevant to the issue were recovered under a mahazar dated 18.08.2005. The residence of Shri Gopaldas Sitaramji Soni alias Gopal Soni, partner of KSC located at No. 103 Appurayappa Lane, Nagarathpet cross, Bangalore was searched on 18.8.2005 and documents/files relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lful misstatement or suppression of facts, the person is liable to pay duty or interest as the case may be as determined under sub-seciton-2 of Section 28 shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty or interest so determined. Learned A.R. further submitted that the adjudicating authority has only imposed penalty to the extent of differential duty confirmed under Section 114A of the Customs Act and not imposed penalty equal to the differential duty confirmed and corresponding interest demanded under Section 28 AB of the Customs Act 1962. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law. He further submitted that the issue is no more resintegra and has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther use of expression as the case may be clearly suggests that the said section is referring to two different persons and situations. One which may be liable to duty and the other which may be liable to interest only and provides that in both the situations, the person liable to duty would be liable to penalty equal to duty and the person liable to interest would be liable to penalty equal to interest. There is no warrant to read or as and . In view of the above I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned orders of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue s appeals are accordingly rejected" Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, by the decision cited supra, we do not find any merit in the present appeal . Consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
