2019 (1) TMI 1677 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal against penalty order, deeming it unsustainable.

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Versus M/s Laxmi Trading Co., Mrs. Madhu Kapoor, Proprietor, Shri Arun Kapoor

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the impugned order dated 28.02.2012, which did not impose penalties under Section 114A. The ... Non-imposition of penalty u/s 114A of CA - Valuation of imported goods - poppy seeds - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value - HELD THAT:- In the present appeal, grievance of Revenue is that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A ibid in the impugned order is not legal and proper - Since, the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order dated 28.02.2012 were set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2015 on merits, the prayer made by Revenue for imposition of penalty under Section 114A ibid cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A in the impugned order.2. Validity of the impugned order dated 28.02.2012.3. Appeal against the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b).4. Tribunal's decision to set aside adjudication orders dated 28.02.2012 and 21.10.2013.5. Legality and propriety of non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A in the impugned order.Issue 1: Non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A in the impugned orderThe Revenue challenged the impugned order dated 28.02.2012, arguing that the failure to impose penalties under Section 114A was against statutory provisions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the adjudication orders on merits in 2015 led to the dismissal of the Revenue's request for penalty under Section 114A, as it was no longer sustainable. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was found to lack merit and was dismissed.Issue 2: Validity of the impugned order dated 28.02.2012The impugned order dated 28.02.2012, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, pertained to under-valuation of imported poppy seeds. The order enhanced the assessable value of the goods, confirmed differential duty, and imposed penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) on the respondents. The Tribunal, in a subsequent order in 2015, set aside the adjudication orders, including the one from 2012, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.Issue 3: Appeal against the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b)The appeal before the Tribunal was a result of the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) on the respondents in the impugned order dated 28.02.2012. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the adjudication orders in 2015, on the grounds that the appeals were allowed on merits, rendered the question of penalties imposed on the appellants moot. Consequently, the Tribunal granted consequential relief in favor of the parties to the appeal.Issue 4: Tribunal's decision to set aside adjudication orders dated 28.02.2012 and 21.10.2013The Tribunal, in its order dated 20.10.2015, set aside the adjudication orders dated 28.02.2012 and 21.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. This decision was based on the merits of the appeals, which led to the conclusion that the penalties imposed on the appellants were not applicable. The Tribunal granted consequential relief in favor of the parties due to the appeals being allowed on their merits.Issue 5: Legality and propriety of non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A in the impugned orderThe primary contention in the present appeal was the legality and propriety of not imposing penalties under Section 114A in the impugned order. Given that the Tribunal had already set aside the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order dated 28.02.2012 on merits, the Revenue's plea for penalty under Section 114A was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed as lacking merit.