2014 (1) TMI 1390 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s under Section 112 (a) - Forged license of DEPB - Held that - in this case, DEPB forged licences were detected, details of transactions are available, the purchaser and brokers are identified, only the dealers who traded DEPB licences are not identified - the question as to who played the main role is irrelevant for the reason that once the case is settled by the Settlement Commission, it is settled in its entirety and such a case then cannot be adjudicated qua other co noticees. The case against all co-noticees comes to an end once the order of settlement is passed in respect of the person entitled to file an application before the Settlement Commission and therefore penalty imposed upon the appellants cannot be sustained and is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for involvement in the use of forged DEPB licenses for import transactions.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a common issue of appeals filed against the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolves around the import of crude palm oil using forged DEPB licenses. The importer, M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises, filed Bills of Entry supported by forged documents, leading to the detection of the illegitimate licenses. The appellant, a broker, was implicated in the transaction, along with other dealers. Settlement Commission granted immunity to the importer and another broker, absolving them from penalties, interest, and prosecution. However, the appellant did not approach the Settlement Commission and faced penalties amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs each. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on all involved parties, including the appellant, despite the Settlement Commission's decision.

The appellant argued that since the Settlement Commission granted immunity to the importer and the other broker, penalties should not be imposed on him. The Revenue's representative contended that penalties were justified based on merits and cited a Division Bench ruling that Settlement Commission orders are not binding on parties not before the Commission. The Tribunal considered the conflicting views of different Division Benches. In a previous case, it was held that once a case is settled by the Settlement Commission, penalties cannot be imposed on other co-noticees. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in a similar context and directed the matter to the Hon'ble President for consideration of constituting a Larger Bench to resolve the conflicting views of the Division Benches on the issue of penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant, highlighting the conflicting views of the Division Benches and the need for a Larger Bench to address the issue of penalty waivers for co-noticees based on Settlement Commission orders. The judgment emphasizes the importance of resolving legal conflicts to ensure consistency and adherence to legal principles in penalty imposition cases involving multiple parties in customs transactions.