Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

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