Interest cannot be levied on delayed CVD and SAD payments under Section 28AA as it only covers basic customs duty

CESTAT Chennai held that interest cannot be levied on delayed payment of CVD and SAD as Section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962 only covers basic customs duty, not duties under Customs Tariff Act. Following SC precedent in Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., the tribunal set aside interest demand, goods confiscation, and redemption fine. Penalty under Section 114A was also quashed citing revenue neutrality principle from Jay Yushin Ltd. case, as appellant could claim credit for duties paid. Appeal partially allowed with duty confirmation upheld but all penalties and interest demands set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification and valuation of imported laptops.
2. Demand of differential duty and interest on CVD and SAD.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification and Valuation of Imported Laptops:
The appellant classified the imported laptops under Customs Tariff Item 84713010, declared the value as USD 277.48 per piece, and claimed exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. They paid CVD on the retail sale price (RSP) of Rs. 14,999/- and availed exemption from SAD under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus. The department contended that the activity of loading software and repacking amounted to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and thus the goods should be assessed on transaction value rather than RSP.

2. Demand of Differential Duty and Interest on CVD and SAD:
The original authority confirmed the differential duty of Rs. 4,81,74,877/- along with interest. The appellant argued that there is no substantive provision for levying interest on delayed payment of CVD and SAD under Section 3(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, referring to the High Court of Bombay's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs Union of India, which held that in the absence of specific provisions for levy of interest or penalty, such charges cannot be imposed. Consequently, the demand for interest on CVD and SAD was set aside.

3. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The original authority ordered the confiscation of 25,512 laptops under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The appellant contended that there was no misdeclaration or suppression of facts, and the entire situation was revenue-neutral as they were eligible for CENVAT credit on the additional duty paid. The Tribunal agreed and set aside the order of confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine, citing the revenue-neutrality principle and the absence of substantive provisions for such penalties under the Customs Tariff Act.

4. Imposition of Penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,85,04,608/- under Section 114A. The appellant argued that there was no willful misstatement or suppression of facts, and the situation was revenue-neutral. The Tribunal noted that the penalty under Section 114A is applicable in cases of short-levy or non-levy due to willful misstatement or suppression of facts. However, given the revenue-neutral situation and the lack of substantive provisions for penalties under the Customs Tariff Act, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the demand for interest, the order of confiscation, the imposition of redemption fine, and the penalties imposed, while upholding the confirmation of the differential duty. The appeal was partly allowed in these terms.

---