2022 (7) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....came to be sustained. Therefore, the only issue to be decided is: whether the above penalty imposed on the appellant, as sustained in the First Appeal, is correct or not? 2. Brief facts leading to the present dispute and which are relevant, inter alia, are that the appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry for clearance of goods declared as "Engineered Wood Floorings - Qak-Earth / Hickory-Clove / Hickory-Pepper", after classifying the same under CTH 44079990; that the above Bill-of-Entry was facilitated by RMS and the appellant paid the duty at the self-assessed rate; that the Revenue alleged to have found during Audit that the imported engineered wood was real wood, which was not one solid piece, but consisted of two or more layers of wood, which w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tify the penalty amount in terms of Section 114A read with the provisos thereto. The reasons given by the First Appellate Authority inter alia are that the penalty under Section 114A ibid. should be equivalent to the differential duty along with interest; that in terms of the first proviso, the penalty shall be twenty five per cent of the duty or interest, which works out to Rs.6,32,298/- and that the Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty of only Rs.1,00,000/-, which was against the provisions of Section 114A read with the first proviso. 4. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority, vide Order-in-Original No.764606/2020 dated 08.10.2020 imposed a penalty of Rs.36,97,501/- under Section 114A ibid. on the appellant. The appellant agitate....