2010 (12) TMI 86 - AT - Customs

Penalty - the grievance of the Revenue is that no penalty was imposed or less penalty was imposed on the respondents under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act - Held that - It appears from the records that the 14 show-cause notices were issued to different parties including the present respondents on the basis of the results of common investigations. The Commissioner passed a common order in adjudication of these 14 show-cause notices. The Reviewing authority issued a common order reviewing the Commissioners order as against the present respondents. - The learned Commissioner, in the impugned order, neatly set out his findings in respect of each of the show-cause notices and arrived at distinct conclusions in relation to the respondents. This being so, the department should have raised specific grounds against the Commissioners order in relation to each of the respondents. The Revenue has dismally failed to meet this basic requirement of an appeal. It is all the more surprising that no specific relief was claimed in any of the appeals.

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under the Customs Act.
2. Enhancement of the quantum of penalties imposed by the Commissioner.
3. Maintainability of the current appeals in light of previous Tribunal decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under the Customs Act:
The Revenue's grievance in some appeals was the lack of penalties imposed on the respondents under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order had exonerated certain respondents from penal liability, and this decision was contested by the Revenue.

2. Enhancement of the Quantum of Penalties:
In other appeals, the Revenue sought to enhance the penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that the appeals aimed at increasing the quantum of penalties were identical in nature to those previously dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.1.2007.

3. Maintainability of the Current Appeals:
At the outset, the counsel for the respondents argued that the current appeals were not maintainable since 16 similar appeals had already been dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's order dated 12.1.2007, which dismissed these appeals, had attained finality as it was not challenged by the department. The Tribunal examined the particulars of the pending appeals and those previously disposed of, finding them to be "pari materia" in all respects, including the statement of facts, grounds of appeal, and the reliefs prayed for.

The learned JCDR contested this by stating that the Commissioner of Customs (Export) did not receive a certified copy of the Tribunal's order dated 12.1.2007, thus no remedial action could be taken. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Registrar mistakenly sent the copy to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) instead of the Commissioner of Customs (Export). Despite this, the Tribunal emphasized that the final order dated 12.1.2007 was binding on the department.

The Tribunal further noted that the present batch of appeals pertained to six out of fourteen show-cause notices adjudicated by the Commissioner in a common order. However, the grounds and reliefs in the current appeals were identical to those in the previously dismissed appeals. The Tribunal criticized the department for failing to raise specific grounds against the Commissioner's order in relation to each respondent and for not claiming specific reliefs in any of the appeals.

Conclusion:
For the reasons stated, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the finality of the previous order and the lack of specific grounds and reliefs in the current appeals. The Tribunal ordered accordingly, dismissing all the appeals filed by the Revenue.

← Previous Next →