2012 (10) TMI 771 - AT - Customs

Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act - wrong provision of law has been quoted by the Revenue in the show-cause notice - non-mention of Section 113 in the show-cause notice would not per se invalidate the penalty imposed under Section 114 if the penalty is otherwise supported by the essential facts alleged and proved - no allegation of fraudulent export in the show-cause notice - show-cause notice did not allege the essential, and consequently the adjudicating authority could not hold any goods to be liable to confiscation in terms of Section 113 of the Act - nobody could have been held to have rendered the goods liable to confiscation so as to attract a penalty under Section 114 of the Act in the present case - question whether Section 114 of the Act could be invoked against the appellant did not arise in that case - in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal's previous order set aside the original penalty, leading to an appeal by the Department in the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration without addressing the legal question raised by the Department.

2. The appellant initially intended to seek clarification from the High Court regarding the remand order but later decided to pursue the penalty-related issue before the Tribunal. The final hearing was conducted, focusing on the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Act.

3. The appellant argued that the penalty under Section 114 was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, which proposed a penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) without providing grounds for invoking Section 114. It was contended that there was no allegation in the notice regarding goods being liable to confiscation under Section 113, a prerequisite for imposing a penalty under Section 114.

4. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument, including cases like Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi and M.N. Shah v. CCE, Surat.

5. The Additional Commissioner argued that the penalty should be upheld based on the facts outlined in the show-cause notice, even if specific sections of the Customs Act were not mentioned. Reference was made to a previous case involving the appellant where a penalty was sustained despite goods not being confiscated.

6. Upon reviewing the case details, the Tribunal found that the show-cause notice did not allege any goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113 or that the appellant rendered goods liable to confiscation. Consequently, the penalty under Section 114 was deemed unsustainable.

7. The Tribunal clarified that a penalty under Section 114 is applicable when an act or omission renders goods liable to confiscation under Section 113. Since the show-cause notice did not support allegations of fraudulent export or goods being liable to confiscation, the penalty under Section 114 was unjustified. Legal decisions were referenced to support this conclusion.

8. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.