TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... willful mis-declaration proved against the appellant in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. It was not justified on the part of the Commissioner to impose a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- without holding the appellant guilty of violation of Regulation as alleged against him - Penalty do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/22022/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20607/2019 - Dated:- 30-7-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri G. Shanmugam, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that the appellants have classified the said goods under 8471 6025 on the basis of a specific instruction of the importer and also in the light of the fact that proof of clearance of identical goods, were permitted to be cleared by the customs authorities at Nhava Sheva Port under CTH 8471 6025. He further submitted that the appellants have undertaken this sale clearance of the importer M/s. Angel India Impex, New Delhi and has merely adopted the classification already approved by the Department. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has observed in para 12 as under: 12. In the absence of an offence report which alleged violations of Regulations 11(d) to (f), I find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (e), (f), there is no basis to decide the same and further, he has also observed that there is no allegation of willful mis-declaration proved against the appellant in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. In view of these findings of the Commissioner, it was not justified on the part of the Commissioner to impose a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- without holding the appellant guilty of violation of Regulation as alleged against him. In view of above infirmities, I am of the considered view that imposition of penalty on the appellant is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
