2025 (6) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of harvesters, transplanters and balers in India and also they do trading of replacement of equipments / parts of the product manufactured and sold by them. During the relevant period i.e. 2012-13, the appellant had imported rubber tracks which are used in the manufacturing of 'track type combined harvesters'. Also, they imported the said items as part of repair and maintenance agreements entered with customers for replacement. They availed the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 (Sl.No.399) on the import of such rubber tracks. Investigation was initiated when they filed Bill of Entry No.8845054 dated 24.12.2012 and consequently resu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....propriated by the adjudicating authority. However, it is their contention that once the penalty has been imposed under Section 114A equivalent to the differential duty, imposition of penalties under Section 112(ii) and Section 114AA are too harsh; hence be set aside. It is her contention that the appellant had claimed the benefit on bona fide belief that the goods which are used for the manufacture of imported 'track type combine harvesters'; supplying for replacement and availed the benefit of the said notification but soon after it was brought to their notice that the said Notification is admissible, immediately before issuance of the show-cause notice, they discharged the differential duty along with interest and also paid 25% of the pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se notice. It is the contention of the appellant that under a bona fide belief and interpretation of the said Notification, they have claimed the benefit on the imported goods; hence imposition of penalty under Section 112(ii) and Section 114AA are unwarranted when the penalty had already been imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 which they have discharged. I find substance in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellants. In the interest of justice, therefore, the penalties imposed under Section 114A is upheld. The penalties imposed under Section 112(ii) and Section 114AA are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Since there is no evidence on record regarding involvement of the Manager Mr. Saurab Gupta,....