TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Match Box alleging that they have filed the shipping bills with incorrect classification intentionally with the aim of getting higher MEIS benefits. The notice also proposed penalty against the appellant for violation of provisions of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR 2018. The notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order wherein he has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000 under section 18(1) of the CBLR, 2018. Aggrieved against the imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that they have filed the Shipping Bill classifying the goods under the CTH 36050090. The appellant submits that it is the duty of the proper officer to decide the classification of the product. They have f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods. Accordingly, I hold that the allegation in the impugned order that the appellant has contravened the Regulation 10 (d) and 10(e) of CBLR 2018 is not sustainable. Thus, I hold that the penalty imposed on the appellant under 18(1) of the CBLR, 2018 is also not sustainable. 7. I find that this view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Max Miller Agencies Vs Commissioner of Customs in Final Order No. 40099 / 2024 dated 30.01.2024 wherein this Tribunal has held as under: 5. Ld. Counsel took me through Regulation 10 (d) and 10 (e) and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no non-compliance of any provisions of the Customs Act by the exporter and hence there was nothing to br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of materials on record, I find that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging incorrect classification filed by colluding with the exporter intentionally by the appellant. Further, I find that the stand of the appellant from the very beginning was that CTH adopted by the appellant was based on the assessment practice for Match Skillets made out of white board. The appellant has also given justification for the said classification. Further, I find that the assessing officers were well aware of the classification and they allowed the said classification without any objection. The respondent did not raise any objection to the adopted class....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reproduce the relevant findings of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Ganesh International Vs CCE - 2004 (174) ELT 171 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the Tribunal has held as under : "The appellants have made the declaration on the Bills of Entry on the basis of documents received by them from their foreign suppliers. The test report of foreign suppliers clearly mentions that the goods are non-texturised fabrics. They have also claimed that a similar consignment imported by them from the same supplier had earlier been cleared as non-texturised polyester fabrics which gave them the bona fide belief that the present consignment would also be of non-texturised variety. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the Appellants have deliberate....