2016 (11) TMI 1490 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the provisions of Section 111(d) were neither invoked before the original proceedings nor were adopted by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The scope of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was limited to the extent of adjudging the applicability of Section 111(m) which was adopted by the Original Adjudicating Authority for confiscating the goods - the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the proceedings and had made out altogether a new case which was never the subject matter before the Original Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner.
3. Applicability of Section 111(d) for confiscation.
4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct re-examination under a new section.
5. Scope of appeal and remand by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The Original Adjudicating Authority confiscated goods for MRP violations under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with this, setting aside the order but suggested re-examination under Section 111(d) for possible confiscation.

2. The appellant challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction, arguing it exceeded the appeal's scope. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no right to introduce a new confiscation provision (Section 111(d)) not previously invoked or adopted in the proceedings.

3. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that Section 111(d) was not part of the original proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) overstepped by introducing a new case not raised before the Original Adjudicating Authority, limiting the appeal's scope to the applicability of Section 111(m).

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of staying within the appeal's original subject matter and not introducing new grounds or provisions beyond the initial adjudication.