Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc (Preventive), Amritsar vs M/S. Mahalaxmi Sales Corporation on 21 May, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Customs appeal No.274 of 2008
[Arising out of Order-in-appeal No. 8-9/CUS/appl/ldh/2008 dated 17.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jalandhar]
Date of Hearing/decision: 21st May, 2012
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CC (Preventive), Amritsar Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Mahalaxmi Sales Corporation,
M/s. Saab & Company Respondents
Present for the Appellant : Shri B.L. Soni, D.R. Present for the Respondent : Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member;
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Revenues grievance is that redemption fine of Rs. 17 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the appellant i.e. M/s. Mahalaxmi Sales Corpn. in adjudication was justified and that should not have been reduced to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and Rs. 50,000/- respectively in first appeal. Shri Soni, learned D.R. states that there is mis-declaration of the goods for undervaluation. Customs duty to the tune of Rs. 16,57,594/- was evaded. When mis-dclaration of description of goods was proved, undervaluation of the goods was also proved. Accordingly, differential duty of Rs. 16,57,594/- was recoverable. Such aspect remained undisputed. There was no cogent reason to reduce redemption fine from Rs. 17 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakh and penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there was justification for the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to reduce redemption fine and penalty. He considered the demurrage cost incurred and also margin of profit as the basis for reduction in redemption fine and penalty reduction was reasonably considered.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. If the adjudication finding is looked into, mis-declaration of description of goods and undervaluation seems to have been proved fact remaining undisputed. Profit aspect in a mis-declaration case is not only a consideration for imposition of redemption fine, but there are surrounding circumstances like evasive practice adopted in import and wilful evasion connected to the illegal import making undervaluation of the goods equally contribute to the determination of redemption fine. We are unable to find any bona fide intention in import. Revenues interest to the extent of Rs. 16,57,594/- was endangered. Keeping the intention of evasion and the quantum of the goods imported as well as the gravity of mis-declaration, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs as against imposition of Rs. 17 lakhs shall not be unreasonable. Similarly, we direct that penalty shall be Rs. 1.5 lakh as against imposition of Rs. 5 lakhs. This calls for modification of first appeal order and we order so.
5. Dose of redemption fine and penalty should be deterrent measure against evasion. Massage should reach to the society that law does not permit evasive practice. Therefore, serious dose of redemption fine and penalty shall desist and seize evasive practice of mis-declaration and undervaluation.
6. Revenue has also come in appeal against C.H.A. respondent i.e. M/s. Saab & Company by the aforesaid common appeal making this respondent as respondent no. 2 in the Appeal Memo. Prayer of the Revenue is to sustain adjudication consequence against C.H.A. From the adjudication order, severity of commitment of offence is not apparent. Accordingly, Revenues appeal is dismissed against C.H.A.
7. In the result, Revenue succeeds partly in appeal against the importer which is Mahalaxmi Sales Corpn. and appeal of Revenue CHA is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MATHEW JOHN) TECHNICAL MEMBER RK 4