TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvertently mentioned as 9031 instead of 9016. It is also a fact that till 2007, the rate of duty under both the Headings was same. The documents including the invoices from the foreign supplier which were placed before the Customs Authorities also contained correct description namely precision balances of sensitivity of 5 cg declared as parts of weighing equipment . It is also on record that without contesting the classification, the appellant had immediately paid the entire differential duty along with interest much prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. Therefore, the question of alleging suppression in the present case does not arise. The decision relied upon by the authorities in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9031. But after investigations, it was found to be rightly classifiable under CTH 9016. The importer in their letter dated 19.11.2009 stated that earlier also they had classified items wrongly and accordingly, differential duty with interest was paid. The appellant had not disputed the classification of the products under Chapter Heading 9016 and 8423, accepting the classification as decided by the department the differential duty along with interest was paid. But however, the Respondent alleging suppression of facts to evade payment of duty, imposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Original Authority had also given an option to pay the penalty, if the amount is paid within 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Impex: 2010 (259) ELT 725 (Tri.-Bom.) to claim that every short-payment of duty cannot be alleged as suppression or mis-statement to evade payment of duty. Having paid the duty prior to the issue of the notice, they were eligible for waiver of penalty under Section 28(2B). 3. The Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterating the findings of the authorities submits that penalty under Section 114A was rightly invoked inasmuch as the demand is under proviso to section 28(1). 4. Heard both sides. The only dispute is whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the entire duty along with penalty much before the issuance of the show cause notice. It is an admitted fact that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty. Suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 11A the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful misstatement. The latter implies making of an incorrect statement with the knowledge that the statement was not correct . 4.1 In the present case, the appellant had paid the differential duty in 2009 and the notice was issued only in 2011 to appropriate the amounts and impose penalty. The Hon ble High Court of Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
