TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Blocks claiming the benefit of Notification No.53/2011-Cus. dated 1.7.2011. The benefit of this Notification is available only on compliance of the conditions prescribed under the Notification No.43/2011 Cus. dated 01.06.2011 under the Indo-Malaysia Trade Agreement. On verification by the Customs, it was found that the 'Country-of-Origin' Certificate produced by the appellant was not in the prescribed format, hence denied the benefit of the above Notification. On further investigations, it was found based on the same 'Country-of-Origin' Certificate the appellant had filed 16 Bills of Entry and cleared the goods availing the benefit of the Notification. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs,17,00,113/- fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 114 A did not arise. It is also submitted that 25% of the penalty was paid under protest within 30 days from the date of the order essentially to claim the benefit of reduced penalty. The learned Counsel also submitted that having already imposed equivalent penalty on the M/s. Royal Timbers the question of imposing penalty of Rs.45,00,000/- on the appellant who is the Proprietor of M/s. Royal Timbers is not justified and hence, requested for setting aside the penalty of Rs.45,00,000/-. Relied on the following case laws: • Raghu Lakshmi Narayanan Versus Fine Tubes 2007 (215) ELT -19 (SC) • D Jewels Versus CCC 2019 (369) ELT 1244 (Tri-Ahmd) • Dharmendra Kumar Versus CCC ICD Ghaziabad 2019 (370)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with Notification No.43/2011-Cus. dated 01/06/2011. The ineligible benefits were also claimed for previous 16 Bills of Entry for the period January 2013 to November 2013, demands against these were also confirmed alleging mis-declaration and suppression of facts. The appellant vide letter dated 20.12.2013 claimed that they had wrongly claimed Notification No. 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011 instead of Notification No.46/2011 dated 01/06/2011 which appears to be an 'afterthought'. The appellant in fact vide letter dated 13.12.2013 requested for assessment without the benefit of the Notification and in response to summons issued to the appellant, he admitted that they were not eligible for the benefit of the Notification. The appellant in his s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed at the time of filing the Bill of Entry cannot be extended as the same cannot be verified as the goods have already been cleared. 8. The only question to be decided is whether the appellant is liable to pay Rs.45,00,000/- under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (A) has upheld the penalty under Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that both are independent of each other and having admittedly produced a wrong 'Country of Origin' certificates, penalty to be sustained. The relevant penalty provisions are reproduced below: [Section 114A. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. Where the duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declared by them in the first Bill of Entry, we deem it fit to reduce the penalty to Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, as the penalty stands imposed on M/s. Ruby Impex, the imposition of separate penalty on the Proprietor is not called for as the proprietor and the proprietary concern are to be considered as one and the same. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon Shri Kishan Lal Chawla, Proprietor of M/s. Ruby Impex stands set aside". (Emphasis supplied) 9.1 The High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Cus., CSI Airport, Mumbai Versus Gyanchand Jain 2015 (321) E.L.T. 199 (Bom.) dated 27-3-2014 also held as follows: "3. The Tribunal found in this case that the penalty imposed on the respon....