Page 51 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A205

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the im-
pugned order of the Tribunal affirming confiscation of goods
valued at ` 13,10,71,789/- and confirming redemption fine of
` 65,00,000/- is invalid and/or perverse in law?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the im-
pugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the imposi-
tion of penalty of Rs. 3,82,16,162/- on the appellants under
Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is invalid and/or per-
verse in law?
3. In facts of the present case, this Court by an order dated 7 March,
2016 upheld the order of the Tribunal on the issue of classification and ex-
emption. However, this Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to con-
sider only the issue of limitation and penalty.
4. Thus, the impugned order is only an order on the issue of limita-
tion and penalty. Therefore, not excluded from the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that since the
goods were examined on 12-5-2008 and the duty was paid by the importer on
7-11-2008 i.e. within the prescribed period of limitation admitting misdeclaration
of description of imported goods, the show cause notice issued on 1-1-2009 could
not be said to be barred by time inasmuch as the said show cause notice could
not be said to be a proceeding for fresh demand of duty but to be considered as a
proceedings to confirm and appropriate the amount already deposited by him.
The Tribunal had further held that the extended period of limitation was
invocable when the assessee had imported CR coils (other alloy steel) by
misdeclaring same as non-alloy steel with intent to avail wrong benefit under
Serial No. 190C of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. particularly when his employee
who was a professionally qualified metallurgical engineer had admitted that just
by looking at the Mill Test Certificate, he could tell whether the consignment to
which said certificate pertained was of alloy steel or else. The professional expe-
rience of said employee could not be disregarded. Further, the importer having
registered by the Department as Accredited Client under Accredited Clients Pro-
gramme (ACP) was required to file correct declaration.
The Tribunal had also held that the importer is estopped from taking the
ground of limitation in subsequent proceedings when he himself has admitted
the differential duty liability and paid the same within the prescribed period of
limitation under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
The Tribunal had also held that the ingredients for invoking extended
period of limitation under Section 28 and for imposition of mandatory penalty
under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 are identical. Once the extended period
was held invocable under Section 28, penalty under Section 114A of Customs
Act, 1962 was also imposable.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Sriram Sridharan with Ms. Lakshmi Menon, for
the Appellant.
Mr. Karan Adik i/b. Ms. Maya Majmudar, for the
Respondent.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  51