TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT), dated 16.02.2016, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 28.04.2011. 2. The appellant in his capacity as CHA filed a bill of entry at Tuticorin port on 16.11.2009 on behalf of the importer M/s.I.Tech Imports and Exports, Chennai so as to get used plastic injection mould machines cleared by the customs. The value that was declared by the importer was SGD28500. The customs got the goods value by the Chartered Engineer as SGD44600. On payment of the customs duty, the goods were also duly cleared. 3. On the basis of an information received to the effect that the machines are imported by misdeclaring the country of origin to evade antidumping duty, the office of the Directorat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.R.Nandha Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 8. The following Substantial Questions of Law arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in not rendering any findings on the grounds raised by the appellant and gave findings on issues which did not have any relevance in deciding the appeal and thereby delivered a perverse order? (2) Whether the order of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, dated 30.11.2010 granting immunity to the importer from prosecution, fine and penalty, will also enure to the benefit of the appellant and consequently, the appellant will not be li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it gives an impression that the differential value sent to the Bank of India account was hawala money transaction by the undervaluation process. Once such material comes to notice, the illegality of the transaction should end with the penal consequence of law. Appellant's contention that the word "person" used in section 114AA of the above said Act only speaks of the person who is involved. It is not necessary that a person involved in disguise shall avoid penal consequence of law when any breach of law comes to notice of Revenue to believe that the same was done by a person in disguise of a business concern. Therefore the plea of "person" fails when penalties were imposed against two different breach of law alleged. 6.When the magnit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. The Division Bench considered the order passed by the Settlement Commission and came to a conclusion that when the importer had escaped liability, the CHA cannot be mulcted with a liability and the benefit has to enure in favour of the CHA also. Accordingly, the writ appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 02.07.2015. 15. The Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Onkar S. Kanwar and Ors. reported in 2002 (145) ELT 266 (S.C.) was dealing with the effect of an assessee being given the benefit of a Samadhan Scheme. The finding rendered by the Apex Court is extracted hereunder : "14. We have heard the parties. In our view, a reading of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order shows that where a declara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thought the show cause notice may have been adjudicated upon and an Appeal is pending a party could still take the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and file a declaration. The object of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order is to give benefit to a settlement by the main party (i.e. the Company in this case) to all other co-notices. This being the object a classification, restricting the benefits only to cases where the show cause notice is pending adjudication, would be unreasonable. If read in this manner the Order would be discriminatory. An interpretation which leads to discrimination must be avoided. An interpretation, as suggested by Mr. Ganesh, would also be against the object of the Kar Vivad Samadhan ....