TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. The Revenue has raised the following questions of law in the appeal : (a) Whether the CESTAT is correct in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A on the respondent, confiscation under Section 111(o) and redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 without considering the detailed findings of the adjudicating authority particularly when the charges of undervaluation and short levy of duty were upheld and are in favour of the Department. (b) Whether the CESTAT is correct in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 merely because the diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods were undervalued, obviously, with a view to evade customs duty and that therefore, the Customs Officer (Proper Officer) has rightly valued the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'). He has further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs, who valued the penalty in his original Order, has assigned elaborate reasons for imposing the penalty; and that the Tribunal has set aside the said Order through a cryptic order and in a perfunctory manner. 4. Opposing the above submission, Mr. G. Prahlad, Learned Counsel representing Mr. Laxmi Kumaran and Sridharan submitted that under Section 28 of the Act, when any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, or when any in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal has rightly set aside the penalty in the above facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Learned Senior Standing Counsel has not disputed the fact that the importer is entitled to make a provisional assessment of the duty which pre-supposes that such provisional assessment need not be accurate. Further, he has also not disputed the fact that before the show cause notice was issued, the respondent has paid the differential duty, as found by the Tribunal in its order questioned in this appeal. While setting aside the penalty, the Tribunal gave adequate reasons in paras 4 and 7 which are reproduced hereunder : "4. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that as regards the advance paid by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant's transaction and the appellant's intention to abide by the law. Prima facie, we are satisfied with the submissions even though the Learned AR opposed this strongly and drew our attention to paragraph 25 and 26 of the order-in-original. However, we find that the facts remains that the advance amount received by the appellant was accepted as part of the consideration without any objection and without any hesitation and differential duty with interest was paid. Therefore, we find that in respect of advance amount received and duty paid, the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty in respect of this alone. 7. As regards the penalty, in respect of design and engineering charges and techni....