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

2019 (5) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pair which the respondent tried their level best but due to some technical issues, they could not do the repair as per the specification of the client and therefore they could not re-export the said goods within the time prescribed in the Notification. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that there is no collusion and wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact in the present case because the respondent has admitted their liability along with interest but they have only challenged before the Commissioner the imposition of penalty under Section 114A and confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) - Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that there is no Mens rea on the part of the respondent to evade paymen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... justice has passed the order wherein the Customs Duty of ₹ 13,84,807/- has been confirmed along with interest and penalty equal to duty plus interest has been imposed under Section 114A and the goods have been confiscated under Section 111(o) and redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/- has been imposed in lieu of confiscation. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the respondent challenged before the Commissioner the imposition of penalty under Section 114A and confiscation under Section 111(o) and redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the submissions made by him and after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal dropped the penalty as well as redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-. Aggri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e as per the specification of their client and their client has not agreed to take back the said goods and the respondents are still pursuing with the client to re-export the same. He further submitted that the respondents are still trying to find out other overseas customers to re-export the same which is lying in their factory. He also submitted that because of the reasons beyond their control, they were not able to re-export the said goods within six months from the dated of importation. He also submitted that the said goods have been imported based on valid DFIA license and there is no mis-declaration or under valuation in any way and therefore the order of confiscation is not tenable in law. He also submitted that there is no Mens-rea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995 so as to re-export the same after doing the necessary repair which the respondent tried their level best but due to some technical issues, they could not do the repair as per the specification of the client and therefore they could not re-export the said goods within the time prescribed in the Notification. Further, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that there is no collusion and wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact in the present case because the respondent has admitted their liability along with interest but they have only challenged before the Commissioner the imposition of penalty under Section 114A and confiscation of goods under Section 111(o). Further, I find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty. The said goods could not be repaired as per the specification of the overseas client and therefore could not export the same within the specified period. The appellant is entitled to claim the immunity from penalties since there is no mens-rea of wrongful intent with intent to evade payment of duty, which is clearly visible. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of, Commissioner of C.Ex. Cus., Aurangabad Versus Atra Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2016 (342) ELT 39 (Bom.) has held that: imposition of penalty is warranted only when there is fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or rules made thereunder with an intention to evade payment of duty. Since t .....

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