TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/2018 dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001 challenging the penalty imposed against them in the impugned order. 1.2. The Commissioner has dropped the proceedings against five officers of the company holding that they were not found to be liable for penal action under the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved against the dropping of the proceedings against five officers of the appellant-importer, the Revenue has preferred the Customs Appeal No. 78334 of 2018. 2. The appellant-importer, M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd., is a sugar manufacturer, and has imported raw sugar for home consumption during the material period through Haldia Port, by availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (Serial No. 76, condition 3A). During the period between October, 2012 and July, 2013, the appellant-importer imported 5,98,865 M.T. of raw sugar under several bills of entry which were assessed finally by the Customs Authorities. 2.1. On February 21, 2014, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata (hereinafter referred as "the Commissioner") wherein it was alleged that the appellant-importer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st of First Schedule to the "Goods of Special Importance Act" and the necessary notification thereof was issued in 2012 and therefore the appellant-importer was liable to pay SAD on the raw sugar imported by them under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under Advance Authorisation. It is informed that the appellant-importer had export commitment to be fulfilled within the stipulated period utilizing the said imported sugar and hence they challenged the detention order in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court; the Hon'ble High Court thereafter quashed the detention order and directed the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla to adjudicate and decide the issue. The appellant-importer states that by the time the detention issue was settled by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Customs authorities at Kandla released the detained goods, further import of the said goods at Haldia refinery had stopped because production activity at the said refinery was suspended for the reason that the Government had raised Customs duty on sugar from 25% to 40%. 3.1. The appellant-importer submits that Kandla Custom Authorities issued Alert Notice No. 01/13-14 dated April 10, 2013 in F.No.S/43-29/SIIB/2012-13 asking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that they have established their bonafides in availing the exemption and hence prayed for waiver of interest and penalty imposed on them. 3.3. The appellant-importer further submits that the demand for SAD has been made under Section 3(5) of CTA; Section 3(12) of CTA provides that the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules and regulations made thereunder, "including those relating to drawbacks, refunds and exemption from duties shall, so far as may be, apply to the duty or tax or cess, as the case may be, chargeable under this section, as they apply in relation to the duties leviable" under that Act. It is their contention that it would thus be seen that there is no provision in CTA, including Section 3 thereof, for levy of interest and penalty for non-payment / delayed payment of inter alia SAD nor has the said section 3, including sub-section (12) thereof, borrowed the provision relating to interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, to apply. In such circumstances, the appellant-importer contends, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2023(3) Centax 261 (Bom.)]upholding the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the respondent, to levy 4% SAD on the plea that exemption from SAD was no longer available. Thus, the appellant-importer submits that the goods imported after obtaining due permission from the proper officers are not liable for confiscation. In this regard reliance is placed upon, inter alia, the following decisions :- i. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Finesse Creation Inc, 2009 (248) ELT 122(Bom) - affirmed by Supreme Court in Commissioner Vs. Finesse Creation Inc., 2010 (255) ELT A120(SC) ii. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Air India Limited, (2023) 9 Centax 111 (Bom) iii. Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2024) 16 Centax 337 (T) iv. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. SB Impex, 2017(358) ELT 358(T) 3.6. Regarding invocation of extended period of limitation to confirm the demand, the appellant-importer submits that in this case, there is no wilful misstatement or suppression of any material fact and hence the extended period of limitation as contained in Section 28(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. 3.7. Regarding imposition of penalty under Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, the appellant-importer submits that Section 114A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....April 2008. It is contended that ff the exemption was not available to them, then the Customs authorities should have pointed out the same and raised the query; instead, the Bills of entry filed by them were cleared without raising any query by the officers. Thus, it is argued that the appellant-CHA cannot be held responsible for the wrong claim of the benefit of the exemption as provided under the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. Accordingly, they prayed that the penalty imposed on them is not sustainable. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. Regarding the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Ld. Departmental Representative submits that the Ld. Commissioner has given his findings in paragraphs 31.2 and 31.3 of the impugned order that the said officers had played a role in filing of the Bills of Entry to unduly avail the benefit of Additional Duty of Custom and accordingly, he submitted that the Ld. adjudicating authority should not have dropped the penalty proceedings against the five officers of the appellant-importer company. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. In the present appeal, we find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alties have been imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. We observe that the issue involved is of interpretational in nature. It is also observed that the appellant-importer has not suppressed any information from the Department. They have been importing raw sugar prior to April 2011 without payment of SAD and continued to avail the SAD exemption during the period April 8, 2011 to July 4, 2013. We observe that the appellant-importer were under the bona fide belief that SAD was exempted for the raw sugar was available even after April 8, 2011 and filed the bills of entry claiming the exemption. If the exemption was not available to them, the Customs authorities should have pointed out the same. Instead, we observe that the Bills of Entry filed by the appellant-importer were cleared without raising any query by the officers. Thus, we hold that the appellant-importer cannot be held responsible for the delay in payment of SAD. Further, we observe that Section 114A provides for imposition of penalty for short levy or non-levy or short payment or non-payment of duty by the reason of collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In this case, we obs....