Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Fal Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 11 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
C/436/01/MAS
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.553/2001 dated 7.9.01 passed by the Commissioner of Custom (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honbe Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical)
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
1. M/s. Fal Industries Ltd
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai
Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. S. Murugappan, Adv. Sh. V.V. Hariharan, JCDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing :11.5.2009 Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per JYOTI BALASUNDARAM In this case differential duty demand on capital goods imported under EPCG licence has been confirmed for non-fulfillment of the export obligation together with interest at the rate of 24%, the goods imported have been confiscated with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the appellants herein.
2. The duty demand is not disputed and the appellants have paid the impugned duty; however, the challenge in the appeal is to the levy of interest on the customs duty and the imposition of penalty.
3. We find that it has already been held by the Tribunal in the assessees own case that in the absence of any statutory provision under the Customs Act or Notification No.160/92-Cus dated 20.4.92, direction for levy of interest cannot be sustained as seen from the report in 2003 (159) ELT 215 (Tri.Chen). The Tribunal has also set aside the confiscation and penalty holding that in the absence of any allegation of deliberate attempt on the part of the importer to avail the benefit of Notification No.160/92-Cus by misdeclaration, confiscation of goods and penalty is not warranted. Following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the order of levy of interest and set aside the confiscation and penalty and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants in accordance with law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P. KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE PRESIDENT
Swamy
??
??
??
??
2