Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Import) vs Samsung Electronics Pvt Ltd on 23 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.C/1099/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CC-MJ/31/2009/Adj.ACC dated 06/08/2009 dated passed by Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import)
Mumbai Appellant
Vs.
Samsung Electronics Pvt Ltd., Respondent
Appearance:
Shri.B.P. Pereira, JDR for appellant
None for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing : 23/11/2010
Date of Decision : 23/11/2010
ORDER NO
1. Heard the learned JDR for the department.
2. Revenue is in appeal against the order No.CC-MJ/31/2009/Adj.ACC dated 06/08/2009 whereby the Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/-. None appeared for the respondent despite notice nor there any request for adjournment. The case is taken up on merits.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent imported a consignment of mobile phones. The department alleged misdeclaration of value against the respondent. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the respondent. The ld. Commissioner confirmed the differential duty of Rs.2,500/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- against the respondent. The department has challenged the imposition of lesser amount of penalty on the ground that as per Section 112 (iii) the penalty should not be less than Rs.5,000/- if the differential duty is less than Rs.5,000/-.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Section 112 (iii) the penalty should not be less than Rs.5,000/- if the differential duty is less than Rs.5,000/-.
5. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned JDR. For better appreciation the relevant provision of law is reproduced hereunder:-
In the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under Section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty (not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees) whichever is the greater.
The above provision provides the mandatory upper-limit of penalty viz., not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof for Rs.5,000/-, whichever is greater. There is nothing in the above provision regarding the mandatory lower-limit for imposition of penalty. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and is therefore upheld. The Revenues appeal, devoid of merits, is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (S. K. Gaule) Member (Technical) pj 1 3