M/S. Kausalya Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944201
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnNov-30-2009
Case NumberAppeal No. C/267 of 2002
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AppellantM/S. Kausalya Impex
RespondentCommissioner of Customs, Coimbatore
Advocates:Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate, for the Appellants. Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR for the Respondent.
Excerpt:
per jyoti balasundaram the appellants herein do no dispute the liability to duty of rs.1,62,265/- as confirmed against them on the ground that they were not eligible to exemption from payment of special additional duty (sad) in terms of notification no. 22/99-cus. dated 28.2.1999 and only challenge the imposition of penalty of r.2,00,000/-. 2. we have heard both sides. we find that the commissioner has relied upon the decision of the tribunal in tarsem singh multani and sons vs. commissioner of customs, amritsar 2001 (134) elt 753 to hold that the assessees are liable to pay sad. however, the commissioner appears to have overlooked the fact that in the very same decision the penalty imposed on tarsem singh multani and sons has been set aside. 3. following the ratio of the above decision we set aside the penalty. the appeal is thus partly allowed by setting aside the penalty.
Judgment:

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

The appellants herein do no dispute the liability to duty of Rs.1,62,265/- as confirmed against them on the ground that they were not eligible to exemption from payment of special additional duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No. 22/99-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 and only challenge the imposition of penalty of R.2,00,000/-.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Tarsem Singh Multani and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar 2001 (134) ELT 753 to hold that the assessees are liable to pay SAD. However, the Commissioner appears to have overlooked the fact that in the very same decision the penalty imposed on Tarsem Singh Multani and Sons has been set aside.

3. Following the ratio of the above decision we set aside the penalty. The appeal is thus partly allowed by setting aside the penalty.