VISHAL DRUG PHARMA Vs. CC, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Counsel for the applicants and the DR representing the respondent submits that the issue involved in this case stands squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Tarsem Singh Multani v. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar (2001 (134) ELT 753 :, 2001 (99) ECR 593 (T)). Therefore, I allow the present application and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming a demand of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Rs. 35,181/ - under Section 28 (2) of the Customs Act, with interest @ 24% P.A. under Section 28AB of the Act, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 35,181/ - under Section 114A of the Act. The appellants had imported 50.308 MTs of Garlic from Pakistan and filed 5 Bills of Entry for clearance of the same for home consumption. They claimed exemption from SAD under Notification No. 56/98 -Cus dated 1.8.1998 on the ground that the goods were intended for sale in a place located in an area where no tax or other charges were leviable on the sale/purchase of like goods. While claiming the exemption, they declared that the goods would not be sold at any place located in such area and also undertook to pay SAD leviable on the goods in case the goods were disposed of in contravention of the above condition. The department later on found that no sales tax or other local charges had been paid on the subject goods at the time of sale thereof by the appellants. Therefore, the party was called upon, by show -cause notice, to pay up SAD amounting to Rs. 35.181/ - on the goods with interest. They were also asked to show cause why penalties should not be imposed on them under Section 114A and 112 of the Customs Act. It was this show -cause notice which ended up in adjudication at the hands of the Commissioner of Customs, who confirmed the demand of SAD, charged interest on the duty amount @ 24% P.A. and imposed mandatory penalty on the appellants as already noted. Hence this appeal.

(2.) LD . Advocate submits that the duty amount has already been deposited on 5.2.2002 as evidenced by a true copy of the TR -6 challan available on record. What remain to be paid in terms of the impugned order are the interest and penalty. Ld. Counsel, fairly, submits that this Tribunal has, in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani (supra), held similar importers of Garlic to be liable to pay SAD in identical situation and, therefore, there is nothing further to be argued on the question of duty liability. It is further submitted that the question of liability to pay interest on SAD belatedly paid has also been decided by the Bench against the assessee in Tarsem Singh Multani (supra). Ld. Counsel further submits that the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the importer, in the aforecited case, was set aside by this Tribunal. Counsel prays for a decision in the present appeal, following the aforecited decision of the Tribunal. Ld. DR has no quarrel with this proposition. On a perusal of the text of the Tribunal's order in Tarsem Singh Multani (supra), I find that the facts of that case are quite similar to those of the instant case. A 2 -Member Bench of this Tribunal, in that case, confirmed the liability of the importer to pay SAD on the imported Garlic in a situation identical to the one obtaining in the instant case. I would follow that decision for all purposes in this case. The present appellants have deposited the duty amount on 5.2.2002 and this fact stands acknowledged by the DR. The appellants are liable to pay interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of assessment of the relevant Bill of Entry to the date of payment of duty. They shall pay this amount within a period of three months from today. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 114A of the Customs Act is set aside. The appeal stands allowed in part.