TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y) liable for confiscation under the provisions of section 111m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However since the goods are not physically available for confiscation I refrain to do so. 6.2 I determine and confirm the aggregate duty liability of the noticee, M/s Wockhardt Ltd. Pertaining to 11 B/Es at Rs. 41,51,270/- (Rupees forty-one lakh fifty-one thousand two hundred seventy only) under the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 28 invoking sub section (4) ibid and order that the amount of differential duty of Rs. 16,81,816/- (41,51,270 2169454) be recovered from the noticee along with interest at applicable rates under section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.3 I impose a penalty equal to an aggregate amount of the duty of Rs. 16,81,0107 Munees forty-one lakh fifty-one thousand two hundred seventy only) and interest calculated on it at the appropriate rates upto the date of such payment of duty on MP Wockhardt Ltd., under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.4 I also order that the amount of Rs. 22,33,771/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh thirty-three thousand seven hundred seventy-one only) voluntarily paid by the noticee during the inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o appellant, making demand of differential duty and interest by invoking extended period of limitation as per provided by section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and for imposition of penalty under Section 114A ibid. 2.5 The show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order in Original No ADC/AKG/130/2016-17 Gr I Adjn. ACC dated 29.08.2016 of the Additional Commissioner Cr.1, Air Cargo Complex Mumbai. 2.6 Aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner, appellants filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) which has been disposed as per the impugned order. 2.7 Aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Prashant Patankar, Consultant for the Appellant and Shri Bhushan Kamble, Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the Appellant learned Consultant submits: ⮚ while filing the B/E's they had correctly given the description of goods and value and there is no dispute about the same. There is no charge of misdeclaration of goods in terms of description and value and against. ⮚ they had erroneously determined and declared the classification of the goods under headings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is own ascertainment of such duty; or (ii) the duty ascertained by the proper officer, the amount of duty along with the interest payable thereon under section 28AA or the amount of interest which has not been so paid or part-paid. Provided that the proper officer shall not serve such show cause notice, where the amount involved is less than rupees one hundred. (2) The person who has paid the duty along with interest or amount of interest under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall inform the proper officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of the duty or interest so paid or any penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in respect of such duty or interest: Provided that where notice under clause (a) of sub-section (1) has been served and the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount of duty along with interest payable thereon under section 28AA or the amount of interest, as the case may be, as specified in the notice, has been paid in full within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice, no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apply to the imported goods, the appellant had intentionally tried to evade proper payment of customs duty. 20. For the purpose of claiming benefit of exemption in respect of countervailing duty, the appellant had stated in the Bill of Entry that the goods imported by it were covered by the Heading 3702 and by the sub-heading 3702.20 of Chapter 37 of the Central Excise Tariff and that it was entitled to the exemption to the extent provided under Notification No. 50/88-C.E. Under Central Excise Tariff for the year 1988-89 also Chapter 37 dealt with Photographic or Cinematographic goods. The relevant heading in respect of Photographic Film in Rolls was 37.02 and it read as under :- "PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM IN ROLLS, SENSITISED, UNEXPOSED OF ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN PAPER, PAPER BOARD OR TEXTILES; INSTANT PRINT FILM IN ROLLS, SENSITISED, UNEXPOSED." 21. Photographic Film in Rolls (Unexposed) were covered by Heading 37.02. If it was meant for X-Ray then the proper subheading for it was 3702.10 Cinematographic Film (Unexposed) were covered by sub-heading 3702.20 and for other types of Photographic Films in Rolls the proper heading was 3702.90. 22. As the goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t claiming any concession. However, due to wrong mention of custom tariff the relevant notification was automatically applied and duty was calculated on concessional rate. This has occurred due to online processing of bill of entry. This fact shows bona fide of the appellant. It is also to be noted that on pointing out the mistake, the appellant has suo motu paid differential duty before the issuance of show cause notice. The issue involved is of classification dispute of the goods imported by the appellant. It is settled law that in case where the issue is related to interpretation of classification of the goods, penalty should not be imposed in such cases. The ratio of the various judgments on this issue cited by the appellant squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore, the mala fide intention to evade duty is not established in the present case, therefore the appellant is not liable for penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 6. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following order : (a) redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs 5,76,193/- are hereby dropped. (b) the confirmation of demand of differential duty of Rs....