| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(EX) 11 CUSTOMS ACT, 1962
Section 112(b)
Where Commissioner had misread the evidence on record and had come to conclusion on the basis of involvement of assessee in other cases wherein assessee had confessed his guilty, and had also approached Settlement Commission along with other importers and paid the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Settlement Commission, therefore, Revenue had failed to establish the charge against assessee on merits and imposition of penalty on assessee was not tenable in law.
|
Penalty - Aiding and abetting the importer to undervalue the imported furniture - Imposition of -
Assessee was engaged in business of hotel management consultancy. Revenue alleged that assessee was responsible in procurement of goods and was fully aware of facts of availability of two sets of invoice showing different prices/values, payment of differential value of imported goods being made through other than Banking Channel. Further, it was alleged that assessee had not disclosed the facts to Customs department which had resulted in undervaluation and non-payment of appropriate Customs duties. Assessee submitted that though he was approached by M/s. G in the initial stage of setting up of their hotel, but eventually was not engaged as a consultant and hence he was in no manner involved in the setting up of the hotel or importing of the furniture and accordingly contested the charge of abetting and proposed imposition of penalty. Commissioner held assessee guilty of abetting and assisting M/s. G in the undervaluation of imported goods and imposed the said penalty under section 112(a). Held: Commissioner had wrongly observed in order that assessee had admitted that he had helped importer M/s. G in undervaluation of the furniture. Commissioner had misread the evidence on record and had come to conclusion on the basis of involvement of assessee in other cases wherein assessee had confessed his guilty and had also approached Settlement Commission along with other importers and paid the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Settlement Commission. Revenue had failed to establish the charge against assessee on merits. Therefore, imposition of penalty on assessee was not tenable in law.
REFERRED : NS Mahesh v. Commissioner of Customs 2018(363) ELT 644 (Tri. Bang.) Mamta Garg v. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. 2018 (359) ELT 77 (Tri. Del.) Shri Motilal Gupta, Shri Gopal Joshi, Mohd. Yaseen Nihal, Ahmed alias Yaseen S.T., Shri Vinod Todi, Shri Maheshkumar U Mour, Shri Paresh Suresh Chhabra, Shri Siddharth J Patani v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (337) ELT 462 (Tri. Mum.) : 2016 TaxPub(EX) 1206 (Mum) Shri Virender Bansal, Shri Deepak Jain, Shri Joginder Singh Bhandari, Prop. Shri Davinder Kumar Sharma v. CC (ICD) 2015(317) ELT 796 (Tri. Del.) : 2015 TaxPub(EX) 581 (Del)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|