Case Law Details
Chloride Metals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Facts- The appellant paid IGST of INR 61,24,785. However, the appellant was not able to get the original documents for taking delivery of the impugned goods. The supplier of the appellant, based at Singapore, became bankrupt and was not in a position to provide the original document. Accordingly, the appellant filed IGST refund application as he didn’t intend to take release of goods. The said refund claim was later on withdrawn due to their deal with M/s. Gravita India Ltd.
Later a notice was issued to the appellant proposing penalty under section 114AA alleging attempt to claim undue refund of INR 61,24,785.
Conclusion- As per section 114AA, penalty can be levied only when a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document, which is false or incorrect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. – 1978 (2) ELT J159 (SC) has held that no penalty should be imposed for technical or venial breach of legal provisions or where the breach flows from the bonafide belief. Held there is nothing brought out in evidence which attracts the ingredients of section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
