The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed re-credit of customs duty in the advance authorisation strips and commented that the appellant cannot be worse off by reason of filing an appeal.
After personal hearing, the Adjudicating Authority held that there is no offence committed by the appellant and that redemption fine is not imposable. However, the appellant’s claim for re-credit of the Advance Authorisation was not permitted. The duty amount of Rs.19,90,620/- was debited from the Advanced Authorisation Scrips. Besides this, a penalty of Rs.30,000/- was also imposed.
The counsel S. Krishnanandh appeared and argued for the appellant and submitted that there is a clear finding by the Adjudicating Authority that there is no offence committed by the importer and that redemption fine is not imposable. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have imposed redemption fine in an appeal filed by the appellant. An appellant cannot be put into a worse situation than that of the earlier order on which the appeal has been filed.
The Counsel submitted that the appellant had placed order for Aluminium Alloy Ingots and the shipment contained Stone Chips. The appellant had not made any payment to the supplier and had totally abandoned the goods. The appellant paid penalty and did not contest the penalty only to buy peace with Department. The appellant requested to the Adjudicating Authority for re-credit of the duty that was debited from their Advance Authorisation Scrips. The Adjudicating Authority did not permit the same.
The Authorised Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar appeared and argued for the Department. The findings in the impugned order was reiterated. It was submitted that the Adjudicating Authority having confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also having imposed penalty ought to have imposed redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is legal and proper.
A Single Member Bench of CS Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) observed that “The appellant has paid the penalty and does not contest the same. So, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that since goods have been confiscated and penalty imposed, redemption fine has to be imposed is erroneous. Further, there is no appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Adjudicating Authority who refrained from imposing redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have imposed redemption fine in an appeal filed by the importer.”
The Bench relied on the judgment in Jaswal Neco Ltd, wherein the Apex Court held that the appellant cannot be worse off by reason of filing an appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
