Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Misclassification of Wheel Loaders not done with Mala Fide Intentions as evident from Conduct of Importer: CESTAT [Read Order]

The facts are that the Revenue felt that the classification of wheel loaders by the importer was incorrect and was done to avail concessional rate of duty.

Misclassification of Wheel Loaders not done with Mala Fide Intentions as evident from Conduct of Importer: CESTAT [Read Order]
X

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, held that misclassification of wheel loaders was not done with mala fide intentions as can be evidenced from the conduct of the importer. Also Read:Short Payment of Service Tax, No Penalty on National Insurance Co. if Differential Tax Arises from Reconciliation Exercise: CESTAT [Read Order] The...


The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, held that misclassification of wheel loaders was not done with mala fide intentions as can be evidenced from the conduct of the importer.

The facts are that the Revenue felt that the classification of wheel loaders by the importer was incorrect and was done to avail concessional rate of duty. This allegation prompted the Commissioner to issue notices proposing the imposition of penalty under Sections 112 (a) and 114AA.

The Handbook Every Tax Professional Needs This Audit Season | Click Here

The CESTAT referred to an earlier case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, Mumbai wherein it was held that the demand of duty, interest and penalty should be restricted to the normal period alone. The Tribunal felt that the classification issue was an interpretational one, and no mala fides could be impregnated into the conduct of the importer.

Therefore, the bench held that the appellant cannot be found at fault for simply filing the Bills of Entry at the instructions of the importer. It was observed that there was no justification in imposing or confirming penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA.

Hence, the bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) set aside the penalty imposed on both the appellants and allowed the appeals.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Transmarine Corporation vs The Commissioner of Customs , 2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 616 , Customs Appeal No. 40417 of 2024 , 2 June 2026 , A. Aruna , Rajni Menon
Transmarine Corporation vs The Commissioner of Customs
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 616Case Number :  Customs Appeal No. 40417 of 2024Date of Judgement :  2 June 2026Coram :  P. DINESHACounsel of Appellant :  A. ArunaCounsel Of Respondent :  Rajni Menon
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019