TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2005 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. Since, at the time admission, no substantial question of law has been framed, we are inclined to frame the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in modifying the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act in respect of misdeclaration, where duty demand has been confirmed?" 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: All the three assessees/first respondent in the above appeals, who are importers of various leather chemicals, have availed the benefit of exemption under Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme (DEEC Scheme). The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence found that the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of Aisha International is concerned (C.M.A.No.1818 of 2007), the substantial question of law on which this appeal has been filed by the Revenue is concerned, it will not survive as there is no penalty under Section 114A imposed against Aisha International and accordingly, C.M.A.No.1818 of 2007 is dismissed. 6. As far as other two appeals are concerned, on the question of law so framed, it is apparent that this is a case of mis-declaration and the findings of the Adjudicating Authority is confirmed by the Tribunal. As a result, duty was demanded in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act and that is not in dispute. After coming into force the provisions of Section 114A, inserted by Finance Act, (No.2), 1996, a person who is liable to pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etion inbuilt cannot be sustained. Dilip Shroff's case (supra) was not correctly decided but Chairman, SEBI's case (Supra) has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered...." 9. The above-said decision was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in JT 2009 (7) SC 314 = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein, the Supreme Court held as follows: "23. The decision in Dharamendra Textile must, therefore be understood to mean that though the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the section, once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In consonance with what is observed in the said judgment, the Tribunal had no discretion to reduce the penalty, as was sought to be done by way of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, question number (i) is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. This would also answer question no.(iii). Accordingly, question no.(iii) is also answered in favour of the Revenue. Since the question no.(i) has been answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, we are not called upon to answer question no.(ii) as it is axiomatic that once it is held that Tribunal has no discretion to reduce the penalty, the question of giving reasons does not arise." 12. In view of the categorical statement of law and taking note of the specific provisi....