Anu Fertility and Contraception Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai |
| May-13-1999 |
| S T Gowri, G Srinivasan |
| (1999)(66)ECC196 |
| Anu Fertility and Contraception |
| Commissioner of Customs |
1. the application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under section 114 of the act of rs. 5.04 lakhs. the duty of equal amount, which has been demanded, has already been paid.2. the representative of the applicant says that the importation in respect of which duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed, took place between july and october 1993, when section 114a was not on the statute book; imposition of penalty under this section is therefore not sustainable. he cites the tribunal stay order in pawan foam products (p) ltd. v. cce 3. the departmental representative contends that the applicant had not complied with the condition of notification no. 64/88 under which duty free import of goods was permitted. the penalty was imposable under sections 112 and 114a has been cited by mistake in the notice and order.4. it is doubt that whether the provisions of 114a which were enacted in 1996, would apply in case the duty is demanded in 1993. the tribunal's stay order cited by the appellant also supports this prima facie view.
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Act of Rs. 5.04 lakhs. The duty of equal amount, which has been demanded, has already been paid.
2. The representative of the applicant says that the importation in respect of which duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed, took place between July and October 1993, when Section 114A was not on the statute book; imposition of penalty under this Section is therefore not sustainable. He cites the Tribunal stay order in Pawan Foam Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE 3. The departmental representative contends that the applicant had not complied with the condition of Notification No. 64/88 under which duty free import of goods was permitted. The penalty was imposable under Sections 112 and 114A has been cited by mistake in the notice and order.
4. It is doubt that whether the provisions of 114A which were enacted in 1996, would apply in case the duty is demanded in 1993. The Tribunal's stay order cited by the appellant also supports this prima facie view.