Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order required modification to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and to correct the interest provision from Section 27AB to Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The impugned order recorded findings that the assessee had breached the conditions of the exemption notifications and had clandestinely removed capital goods from the bonded premises, thereby attracting penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The operative portion, however, omitted the penalty under Section 114A and mentioned Section 27AB instead of Section 28AB for interest. The discrepancy between the findings and the operative part was treated as an apparent and serious error requiring correction.
Conclusion: The respondent was held liable to penalty equal to the customs duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and liable to pay interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the findings in an order conclusively establish liability but the operative part omits the proper penalty provision or cites an incorrect interest provision, the appellate forum may correct the apparent error and enforce the liability in accordance with the substantive findings.