2015 (9) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... required to pay penalty quantified at Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- 2) We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why after obtaining complete relief and in relation to duty liability does the petitioner company and its employees deem it necessary to challenge the penalty imposed. Mr. Sridharan learned Senior Counsel submitted that imposing of penalty has other legal consequences. Tomorrow, the petitioners may not be permitted to approach the Settlement Commission and in any other case. Therefore, imposition of penalty will prejudice them. 3) The second argument was that when the Settlement Commission has passed an order not directing payment of additional customs duty over and above that paid by the company so ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....above that specified in the tariff and in terms of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, the Commission has overlooked the statutory scheme which indicates as to how the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and the rules and regulations made thereunder have a limited applicability. Therefore, in matters covered under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by virtue of sub section 5 of section 3 thereof the provisions enacting imposition of penalty under the Customs Act 1962 have not been incorporated or brought within the purview of the Customs Tariff Act 1975. These submissions should have been dealt with according to Mr. Sridharan. 5) Mr. Bharati appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 11 October 2011 stated that the classification was accepted by the Nhava Sheva Customs and even if the duty is paid under Tariff Act, 1975 the same is available as cenvat credit to them. Therefore, they have not made any saving and it was revenue neutral. All this was required to be gone into together with other submissions which have been canvassed with regard to waiver of imposition of penalty in the case of present nature. We do not find that beyond making a reference to the material before it the Commission rendered any independent finding on the point of penalty. The stand has to be noted and of both sides. It should have been noted that requisite details were the letter dated 14 January 2009 and if the said letter issued from ove....