Acer India (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Audit) (CESTAT Chennai)
The appellant has argued that confiscation of goods, interest demand, penalty and redemption fine imposed cannot be sustained in relation to CVD leviable under Section 3 (1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) had considered the said issue and held that interest and penalty in relation to CVD cannot be demanded in the absence of specific provisions for levy of interest, penalty in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The said decision was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in 2023 (8) TMI 135-SC. Following the same, we hold that the confiscation of goods, interest on CVD, redemption fine and penalties cannot sustain.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellant has been importing and clearing notebook / laptop computers and supplying the same to M/s. Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (herein after referred to as ‘ELCOT’) and other state Government agencies for free distribution to students. On specific intelligence that the appellant has been suppressing the actual sale price by mis-declaring the MRP to evade Customs duty (CVD), officers of SIIB conducted inspection of the goods stored at warehouse of the importer situated at the premises C/o. M/s. Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd., SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur.
