Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Standard Organics vs Commissioner Of Cus. And C. Ex. on 9 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999(112)ELT541(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)
1. In this case, the duty demand of Rs. 20,04,492/- is not disputed. When the matter came to the knowledge of the Department, the appellant themselves stated that no show cause notice is necessary and they are paying the duty amount in question. Therefore, they made a voluntary payment even without a SCN. The matter was taken up for adjudication and in para 16 of the impugned order, the ld. Adjudicating authority held as follows :-
"The above acts of omission and commission attract a very heavy penalty. However, in view of the fact that the S.O.L. have made voluntary payment of the total amount of duty due, I take a lenient view in the matter of imposing penalty on them. I, therefore, propose to impose a lesser penalty."
2. The ld. Advocate Shri K.R. Natarajan pointed out that some of the officials of the appellant company under a bonafide impression that these were not excisable goods, cleared the goods without payment of duty. But when the matter came to the knowledge of the appellant straightaway they admitted the duty liability and requested the officials that they are voluntarily paying the duty without even issuing a SCN. He, therefore, pointed out that there was no willful or deliberate act on their part. He also pointed out that in para 16 of the impugned order the adjudicating authority himself had stated that a lenient view is sufficient in this matter.
3. Heard the ld. JDR Shri Ravinder Saroop for the Department. He pointed out that in view of the fact that the goods in question are removed without payment of duty, penalty imposed is just and proper.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is now seen that the bonafides of the appellant are established in view of the fact that even without the requirement of SCN, they made voluntary payment. This is also admitted in the impugned order and this act of the appellant, according to the Adjudicating Officer, was sufficient to take a lenient view as mentioned by him in para 16 of the impugned order. However, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be met, if the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and we order accordingly. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.