Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (5) TMI 1435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Revenue against the impugned orders dated 27.06.2009 and 23.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner of Customs has demanded the differential duty as well as interest and also ordered for confiscation and also imposed redemption 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 ₹ 1,15,425/- was detained. At the premises of KSC certain documents relevant to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submitted that as per Section 114 A of the Customs Act, where duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or interest has not been charged or paid or has been part-paid, or duty or interest has been erroneously refunded, by reason of collision or any willful 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 correspondi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om above, the said section is applicable to a person who is liable to pay the duty OR interest as the case may be, who shall be liable to penalty equal to the duty or interest so determined. The expression used is or , which is disjunctive between duty or interest. Further 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 rea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates