9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Lack of jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad to issue show cause notice; Confiscation of imported yarn clandestinely removed by the appellant company; Imposition of penalty on the Director of the appellant Company.
Analysis: 1. Lack of Jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad: The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, holding that the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to demand duty from the 100% EOU. The Commissioner also ruled that M/s. Kumar Fab was not the importer, thus duty was not demandable from them. However, the Commissioner upheld the confiscation of goods seized from both Kumar Fab's premises and the truck, along with redemption fines. The penalty under Section 114A on the appellant company was set aside, but penalties on the Director and other parties were upheld. 2. Confiscation of Imported Yarn: The appeals questioned the confiscation of 7000 Kgs of imported yarn clandestinely removed by the appellant company and received by Kumar Fab, as well as the penalty imposed on the Director. The appellant's advocate cited precedents to argue that a show cause notice issued by an incompetent officer should be considered void, and any actions taken based on it should be set aside. Additionally, the advocate argued against the validity of an addendum substantially altering the original order without proper notification. 3. Imposition of Penalty on the Director: The appellant's advocate contended that without specific findings on the Director's role, the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) on the Director was not sustainable. The learned DR argued that the case's facts were different from previous judgments cited and that the show cause notices were severable concerning the offences within the Joint Commissioner's jurisdiction. 4. Judgment: The Tribunal found the combined show cause notice not entirely invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing officer in one matter. The Tribunal distinguished the case from previous judgments, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the offences and parties involved. The Tribunal set aside the addendum issued beyond the appeal period, directing a fresh consideration of the confiscation issue and penal action. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a reevaluation, ensuring the appellants are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeals were allowed by way of remand on specified terms.
|
