9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December, 2013 and January, 2014, vide eight bills of entry, declared value at unfixed prices (provisional price) and sold to local customers under various invoices. After final price of gold jewelry was fixed based on agreed price with the exporter, remittance was paid through banking channels. On 22.12.2014, on being pointed out by their bankers M/s Axis Bank, that there is a difference between the value of the import and the amounts paid for the exports, appellant informed the Customs Department about the difference and paid the differential customs duty along with interest, followed up by a letter dated 24.12.2014 requesting the department not to issue any show cause notice for penalty. Subsequent to such letters, the Revenue Authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons. It is his submission that they were informed by the bank and immediately they discharged the duty along with interest and also sought condonation from Reserve Bank of India for the lapse and was condoned by the Reserve Bank of India and as confirmed by their bankers Axis Bank to them by letter dated 10.06.2015 with clear instruction that they should follow the given general guidelines strictly. He would submit that penalties imposed under Section 114A and 114AA be set aside as they had themselves come forward and discharged the differential duty on being informed by the bankers. He would submit that judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount paid by the appellant along with the interest. We find that there is no dispute on differential duty and interest thereof and has been paid of, there being challenge by the appellant in the appeal that portion of the impugned order is upheld. 6. Coming to the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, we find the provision of said Section presupposes that there was a short levy, non-levy by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts and has been determined under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and has to be imposed by an equivalent amount of penalty. In the case in hand, there is no dispute as to the fact that appellant themselves have come forward and informed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
