2012 (11) TMI 489 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114A(i) - Held that - The appellant herein was not served upon any show cause notice in order to make effective contest and reply to the allegations made in the show cause notice, thus issue needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority after considering the reply in the defences taken by the appellant before coming to any conclusion. The heavy penalty has been imposed on the appellant without adhering to the principles of natural justice. On this ground itself the issue to the extent it is challenged before us needs to be set aside - direction to Commissioner of Customs, Kandla to serve the show cause notice on the appellants & appellant s advocate.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition against penalization under Sections 114A(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Failure to serve show cause notice at the correct residential address.
3. Imposition of heavy penalty without adhering to principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a stay petition against being penalized under Sections 114A(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the appeal could be disposed of promptly as it was narrow in scope. The stay petition was allowed, and the appeal was taken up for disposal.

2. The appellant, a proprietorship firm, argued that they were not served with a show cause notice at the correct residential address. The appellant's counsel contended that the lower authorities served the summons at the residential premises, received by the appellant's wife, indicating awareness of the correct address. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not served with a show cause notice, denying them the opportunity to defend the case effectively. This lack of proper service led to the imposition of a heavy penalty without following principles of natural justice.

3. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Customs to serve the show cause notice at the correct addresses of the appellant and their advocate. It was emphasized that the lower authorities should ensure both the appellant and their advocate receive the personal hearing notice to contest the matter before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal clarified that they did not express any opinion on the case's merits and left all issues open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

4. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to follow the given directions and ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld during the proceedings. The Tribunal's decision focused on rectifying the procedural errors and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case effectively.