9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the same on payment of duty. 3. Later on, the DRI investigated the matter. It was found that the imported cars were old and used and value of the said cars have been declared much less than the actual transaction value. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant to impose penalty under Section 112(a) and 112 (b) and Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The matter was adjudicated. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority imposed the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under the provision of Customs Act, 1962, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 5. Aggrieved from the said order of imposing composite penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs under the provision of Customs Act, 1962, the appellant is before us. 6. The Ld Counsel for the appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee on Finance (2005) which proposed this new section consequent to the deduction of several cases of fraudulent export where the exports were shown only on paper and no goods crossed the Indian boarder. The Committee opined introducing provisions of levying penalty upon 5 times the value of goods as a right deterrent the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalpana Mehta Vs. Union of India in Civil Writ Petition No. 558 of 2012 has held that the Parliamentary Committee Report is to be considered to see the purpose for which a statutory provision has been brought in. Since provision 114AA is against the fraudulent exporters we hold that the same is wrongly invoked for penalizing the Customs House Agent. We draw our sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the partners as also partnership firm cannot be imposed." In addition to the above noted decision, the Tribunal also relied on the following pronouncements of different courts: (1) CCE & C, Surat -II v. R.G.Agarwal -2009 (234) E.L.T. 215 (Guj) (2) R.G.Agarwal v. CCE & C, Surat -2007 (210) E.L.T. 274 (Tri-Ahmedabad) (3) Kamlesh Kumar Goel v. CCE, Thane-II -2008 (223) E.L.T. 64 (Tri-Mumbai) (4) Punjab Recorder Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-2001 (132) E.L.T. 41 (Tri-Del) (5) Agarwal Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, Delhi -2002 (146) E.L.T. 190 (Tri-Del) We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal looking to the decisions referred to in the judgement of the Tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with the order of theTribunal particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
