Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ranger Apparel Export Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... on 22 September, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/20104/2017-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 537-2016 dated 20/09/2016 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I ] Ranger Apparel Export Pvt Ltd Survey No 136,bommanahalli, Bidrahalli Hobli,boodhilere Cross,bangalore BANGALORE - 560049 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-cus C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
S. RAGHU ADV NO.543, 12TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078 For the Appellant Shri Raghavendra B Hanjer, Adv.
For the Appellant Shri N Jagadish For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 22/09/2017 Date of Decision: 22/09/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22184 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed the impugned order dated 20.09.2016 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant has imported goods during the period March 2011 and April 2011 by claiming exemption of special additional duty under notification No.20/2006/Custom dated 01.03.2006 and notification No.21/12/Custom dated 17.03.2012. The department of Intelligence found that the appellant has imported goods wrongly by claiming exemption under notification No.20/2006/Custom dated 01.03.2006 and notification No.21/12/Custom dated 17.03.2012. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued and by following the due process of law, the duty was confirmed along with interest and the same was paid by the appellant along with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal, hence the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
4. The learned Counsel has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by wrongly interpreting the facts and the law. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has not appreciated the fact that the exemption from the levy of SAD was removed under Finance Act, 2011 only and the appellant was not aware of the said amendment as they filed the Bill of Entry on 31.03.2011. He further submitted that the amendment of Finance Bill 2011 came into force on 08.04.2011. He also submitted that he has paid the duty along with interest prior to the adjudication order and there was no intention to evade the payment of duty. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa 1978 ELT 179 where the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:
Penalty is the result of quasi-judicial proceeding and will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of obligations. Even where minimum penalty is prescribed, imposition of penalty can be justifiably refused.
5. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Amrit Corp. Ltd. 2016(333) E.L.T. 340 (Tri.-Mumbai).
6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the materials on record, I find that the Bill of Entry in this case was filed on 31.03.2011 and the appellant was not aware of the withdrawal of the exemption at that time, and therefore I am of the opinion that there was no intention to evade as he has paid the duty along with interest.
7. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that imposition of penalty is not warranted. Therefore, I set aside the penalty by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential benefit if any.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 22/09/2017) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER RB 1