2003 (11) TMI 390 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposition under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a):
The appellant contested the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, following re-adjudication by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The Commissioner had initially enhanced the assessment of the imported car and imposed a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, which was set aside by the Tribunal in a previous order. In the current impugned order, the Commissioner accepted the car's valuation but imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) which was not present in the previous order. The appellant argued that the Commissioner cannot go beyond the remand order of the Tribunal and impose a penalty not previously imposed. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the penalty under Section 112(a) was not involved in the previous proceedings, and thus set aside the imposition of the penalty.

2. Appellant's Submission:
The appellant's counsel argued that since the valuation issue was decided in the appellant's favor and the proceedings were dropped, there was no justification for imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. It was contended that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the remand order by imposing a penalty that was not part of the previous order-in-original. Therefore, the appellant requested the impugned order to be set aside based on this argument.

3. Revenue's Justification:
On behalf of the Revenue, the Departmental Representative reiterated the findings and supported the imposition of the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the imposition of the penalty was not warranted given the specific circumstances of the case and the limited scope of the remand order related to valuation issues only.

4. Final Decision:
After careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had not imposed any penalty under Section 112(a) in the previous order, and the Tribunal's remand was limited to re-adjudicating the valuation issue. Since the Commissioner had accepted the valuation in favor of the appellant and dropped the proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that it was improper to impose a penalty under Section 112(a) in the current scenario. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the imposition of the penalty, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.