TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for deemed conclusion of the proceedings against the assessees if the payment as regard the duty, interest and penalty thereof stands made by the assessee. It is further seen that the provision is applicable even in the cases of demand having been arisen on account of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression, if the same stands accepted by him and the respective duty along with interest and the required penalty stands paid. Now coming to the fact of the present case, it is admitted facts in present matter that the appellant herein has made the duty payment alongwith interest and penalty. The said acknowledgment is very much recorded in the impugned order itself. In the given circumstances, it is opined that the Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 was issued proposing to reject the classification claimed by the Appellant under CTH 38122090 and to classify the same under 27079900 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and reassess bill of entry accordingly. It was also proposed to demand differential customs duty of Rs. 43,35,516 + Rs. 10,91,994/- alongwith interest. Total qty. of Shell Flavex Oil 595B imported by the Appellant are declared as plasticizer was proposed to be confiscated as per the provisions of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. It was also proposed to impose penalty on Appellant under Section 112(a)/114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Another second show cause notice dated 08.09.2016 was also issued to the Appellant by Additional Commissioner of Customs, Mundra in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62/-. As the goods in question are not available for confiscation since they have been provisionally released, I thereby order for redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) I confirmed the differential customs duty of Rs. 4,08,115/- on the seized goods valued at Rs. 85,37,562/- under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, as detailed under Annexure B to the show cause notice F.No. VIII/48-579/Balkrishna/Cr.VII/MCH/16-17 dated 08.09.2016 and order to adjust the same, if paid already. (e) I impose a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on M/s Balkrishna Industries Ltd., Mumbai under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (f) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 4,08,115/- on M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal of revenue. Once the bonafide is established, the same is applicable to the facts of the impugned case where similar import of same goods was made under duty payment route from the very same ports for the very same periods. Accordingly, deemed conclusion under Section 28(2) should have been ordered. 6.2 He also argued that it is also a legal facts that no penalty under Section 112(a) can be imposed if penalty under Section 114A has been imposed. 7. Shri. J A Patel learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue drew our attention to the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has considered the submissions and has reached the conclusion which according to the learned AR/DR is the correct c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest not being in excess of the amount partly due from such person. The bare perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that the same is a beneficial provision of legislation with an intention to reduce the litigation proceedings where the assessee satisfies the condition of the said Section. The language makes it clear that the provisions provide for deemed conclusion of the proceedings against the assessees if the payment as regard the duty, interest and penalty thereof stands made by the assessee. It is further seen that the provision is applicable even in the cases of demand having been arisen on account of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression, if the same stands accepted by him and the respective duty along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... least on the main importer/Noticee. It is the settled provision that Circulars being mere clarificatory in nature cannot supersede the legislature. It is also settled principle of law as was held by Hon ble Apex Court in Babu v. Bar Council, Kerala - AIR 1999 SC 1281 that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In another case of Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 613, the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that a taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed therein and nothing can be implied nor can the provisions be imported into it so as to supply an assumed deficiency. 9. We agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
