Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

Apollo Tyres Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (19 Apr 2024)

Equal penalty can be imposed only in a case where the duty has not been paid or short paid by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of fact

MANU/CS/0164/2024

Customs

Present appeal is directed against order-in-original wherein the Appellant challenged only imposition of penalties of Rs. 68,74,072 imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1964.

The case relates to classification of the imported goods, the Appellant have classified the goods under CTH 38122090 on a bona fide belief that the imported goods were Plasticizer and the same were used as Plasticizer in the manufacture of the tyre. The compound Plasticizer is clearly mentioned in the tariff entry against CTH 38122090. Therefore, the bona fide belief of the Appellant that the product being a plasticizer classifiable under CTH 38122090 cannot be doubted. The appellant without contesting the duty liability paid the entire amount along with interest and seek relief only for waiver of penalty.

In all over India at all the Ports, said goods was being classified and accepted under CTH 38122090 considering the same as plasticizer. Therefore, it is not only belief of the Appellant but also the view of the department that the goods is classifiable under CTH 38122090. However, it could only be ascertained that the good is classified under CTH 27079900 after detailed analysis of the product. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty under Section 114A of Act cannot be imposed.

From the plain reading of the Section 114A, it can be seen that the equal penalty can be imposed only in a case where the duty has not been paid or short paid by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of fact. In the present case, it is absolutely clear that non-payment of duty on the part of the appellant is not by reason of suppression of fact, collusion or any willful misstatement. Therefore, the ingredients for imposing penalty under Section 114A are absent. Therefore, the penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed. The duty demand along with interest and payment thereof are upheld and maintained. The penalty imposed under Section 114A is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved