2015 (1) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - Attempt to smuggle goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Immunity given to co-noticee in previous cases - Held that - On going through the observations made by the adjudicating authority I find that on the same allegation when he had no hesitation to drop the penalties imposed on the Reliance Industries Ltd., then why he has not adopted the same principle for dropping the penalties proposed against all other co-noticees. I am of the view that on the principle of equity, immunity to all the co-noticees of the show cause notice is to be granted. When immunity has been granted to M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., the appellants are also required to be granted immunity from the imposition of penalty on the same cause of action in the impugned show cause notice. Therefore, I set aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues involved: Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 imposed on appellants, principle of equity in granting immunity to co-noticees, imposition of penalty twice on the same transaction, application of double jeopardy.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI deals with the issue of penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The case revolves around the interception of two containers in 1994, found to contain masoor dal instead of POY, leading to proceedings against the exporters. The main allegation was smuggling masoor dal in the guise of POY. Notably, M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. had earlier availed immunity under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 for similar allegations. The adjudicating authority observed that imposing penalty twice on the same transaction would amount to double jeopardy and concluded that Reliance Industries Ltd. was not liable for penal action. However, the authority imposed penalties on the appellants in this case, prompting the appeal.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found inconsistency in the adjudicating authority's approach. If immunity was granted to Reliance Industries Ltd., the principle of equity demanded similar treatment for all co-noticees. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants, emphasizing the need for uniformity in granting immunity based on the same cause of action. This decision highlights the importance of applying legal principles consistently and avoiding double jeopardy in penalty imposition, ensuring fairness and equity in such cases.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of upholding principles of equity and avoiding double jeopardy in penalty imposition under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By granting immunity to all co-noticees based on the same cause of action, the Tribunal ensures fairness and consistency in legal proceedings, safeguarding against unjust penal actions and promoting a just and equitable legal system.