2016 (5) TMI 447 - SCH - Central Excise

Supreme Court Upholds Penalties for Under-Valuation of Goods

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in C.A. No. 1826 of 2008 and C.A. No. 2993 of 2008. The first appeal was dismissed due to the small amount ... Penalty for deliberate under-valuation - Under-valuation of goods cleared for home consumption - Admission and payment of differential duty - Summary dismissal for trivial financial stakeSummary dismissal for trivial financial stake - Appeal not entertained on account of the meager amount involved. - HELD THAT: - The Court declined to entertain C.A. No. 1826 of 2008 solely because the monetary stake was meagre. No substantive consideration of the merits was undertaken and the appeal was dismissed for that reason.C.A. No. 1826 of 2008 dismissed on the ground that only a meagre amount was involved.Penalty for deliberate under-valuation - Under-valuation of goods cleared for home consumption - Admission and payment of differential duty - Validity of penalty imposed for deliberate under-valuation when differential duty was paid and adjudicatory authorities found deliberate under-valuation. - HELD THAT: - Against the factual findings recorded by the assessing authority and affirmed by the CESTAT that the appellant deliberately under-valued goods cleared for home consumption (a conclusion reinforced by the appellant's own Resolution dated 2nd August, 1996), the Court found no reason to interfere. Although the appellant had subsequently paid the differential amount claimed, penalty proceedings had been validly initiated and the imposition of penalty was upheld by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court concurred with the factual and legal conclusion of deliberate under-valuation and sustained the penalty.C.A. No. 2993 of 2008 dismissed; the penalty imposed for deliberate under-valuation upheld.Final Conclusion: One appeal (C.A. No. 1826 of 2008) dismissed as not entertained on account of the meagre amount involved; in the other appeal (C.A. No. 2993 of 2008) the Tribunal's finding of deliberate under-valuation (supported by the appellant's own Resolution) was upheld and the penalty sustained. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in C.A. No. 1826 of 2008 due to the small amount involved. In C.A. No. 2993 of 2008, the appellant declared a lesser price for goods cleared for home consumption, leading to penalty proceedings and upheld penalties by the CESTAT for deliberate under-valuation. The appeal was dismissed as there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.