Failure to Consider Judicial Decisions on Redemption Fine and Penalty: CESTAT Sets Aside Order [Read Order]
The Additional Commissioner acknowledged that while the decisions were reviewed, their applicability was not discussed.
![Failure to Consider Judicial Decisions on Redemption Fine and Penalty: CESTAT Sets Aside Order [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Judicial-Decisions-Redemption-Fine-Penalty-CESTAT-Aside-Order-TAXSCAN.jpg "Failure to Consider Judicial Decisions on Redemption Fine and Penalty: CESTAT Sets Aside Order [Read Order]")
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside an order after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider binding judicial decisions while imposing a redemption fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. SLV Trading Company,appellant-petitioner,challenged the redemption fine and penalty under...
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside an order after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider binding judicial decisions while imposing a redemption fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
SLV Trading Company,appellant-petitioner,challenged the redemption fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider binding judicial decisions before imposing the fine. The assessee requested a remand for a fresh order after considering these precedents.
Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals Click Here
Section 112(a) of the Act, imposes penalties for importing goods illegally. If the goods are dutiable, the penalty can be up to the duty amount or ₹5,000, whichever is higher. For prohibited goods, it can be up to their value or ₹5,000, whichever is greater. Section 114AA applies to those who submit false declarations or documents to evade duty or gain benefits illegally, with a fine of up to five times the duty evaded. These rules help prevent customs violations and ensure compliance.
The Additional Commissioner argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the decisions but admitted that their applicability was not discussed in the order.
A single member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the early hearing and took up the appeal for final disposal. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider binding judicial decisions and issue a fresh order. All other contentions on the redemption fine and penalty remained open. The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the appeal was disposed of.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
