Case Law Details
Cipra Enterprises Vs Commissioner Of Customs- (Export) (CESTAT Delhi)
Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that it is not in dispute that the goods are not of Indian origin and hence, the appellant was not entitled to claim the benefit of MEIS. Thus, the goods were found to be mis-declared as the appellant had declared the goods to be of the Indian origin. Learned Commissioner also pleased to set aside the penalty under Section 114AA of the Act but confirmed the penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Act as well as the redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the appellant inter alia reiterates the grounds which had been raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). He further urges that the redemption fine and penalty are disproportionate and on the higher side and the same may be substantially reduced for the end of justice.
Having considered the rival contentions, it is evident that the appellant made a wrong claim of export benefit under MEIS, being mis-advised by the CHA. However, it was the responsibility of the appellant to understand the eligibility and the conditions before making a claim for the export benefits. However, in the facts and circumstances, that the goods were not prohibited goods, I find that the fine and penalty are on the higher side. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified as follows:
(i) Redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.
(ii) Penalty under Section 114(iii) is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
