2014 (6) TMI 158 - HC - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) on the person who dealt with goods liable to confiscation - tribunal deleted the penalty - Held that - As may be noted from the discussion elaborately made by the CESTAT, the Commissioner of Customs while levying penalty had essentially relied upon the statements recorded of Shri Shashi Bhushan of M/s.Efficient Exports against whom main charges were levelled. The Tribunal after detailed discussion, on the modus which was adopted by Shri Shashi Bhushan concluded that there was insufficient material to indicate the involvement of the respondent herein and except a one line statement of Shri Shashi Bhushan, there was no corroborative evidence leading to conclude the involvement and the charges levelled against the respondent. This resulted into the Tribunal deleting the penalty.There is neither any perversity in the findings nor in conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal nor any substantial question of law emerging - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act; Involvement of respondent in fraudulent activities; Deletion of penalty by Tribunal based on insufficient evidence.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard a Tax Appeal challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 4.4.2006. The main issue raised was whether the respondent, who dealt with goods known to be liable for confiscation, should be penalized under section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant's counsel argued before the court, presenting the facts of the case leading to the appeal. The case involved Shri Shashi Bhushan, who fraudulently obtained licenses for importing plastic materials and failed to fulfill export obligations. The original order imposed penalties on individuals involved, including the respondent, under section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal, in its decision, primarily relied on the statements of Shri Shashi Bhushan to levy penalties. However, upon detailed examination, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the respondent to the fraudulent activities. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence and concluded that the respondent's involvement was not established beyond a one-line statement by Shri Shashi Bhushan. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed on the respondent based on the lack of conclusive evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a separate case involving Shri Pravin Ahuja, where penalties were imposed by the Commissioner in similar circumstances. The Tribunal found the facts in both cases to be identical, indicating fraudulent activities orchestrated by Shashi Bhushan and a licensed broker. The Tribunal, therefore, decided to delete the penalty imposed on the respondent based on the findings in Shri Pravin Ahuja's case.

In the High Court's analysis, it was observed that the Tribunal's decision was well-founded on the facts presented before it. The Court found no errors or perversity in the Tribunal's findings or its conclusion regarding the respondent's liability for the penalty. As no substantial question of law was raised in the appeal, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that it did not warrant further consideration.