2015 (9) TMI 30 - HC - Customs

Setting aside of confiscation and penalty order Monetary limit Whether Tribunal s order setting aside confiscation and penalty ordered by Adjudicating Authority is in order, when there is clear violation of procedure contemplated under EXIM Policy by importer Held that - AO initially imposed redemption fine and penalty, which, on appeal, was subsequently reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) and on further appeal by assessee, Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) Therefore, very clear from records that monetary limit having been fixed at ₹ 2 lakhs, even as per order of Commissioner (Appeals), redemption fine and penalty being less than ₹ 2 lakhs, appeal is not maintainable Without going into merits of question of law formulated appeal dismissed as not maintainable Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order allowing appeal by assessee.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty by adjudicating authority.
3. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Tribunal setting aside redemption fine and penalty.
5. Maintainability of appeal based on monetary limit.
6. Admissibility of appeal in light of monetary limit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. The substantial question of law framed for consideration was whether the Tribunal's order setting aside confiscation and penalty was in order concerning the violation of procedures under the EXIM Policy by the importer.

2. The first respondent imported re-rollable scrap and failed to file a pre-shipment certificate as required by the public notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs. Consequently, the adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000 and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) later reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 75,000 and the penalty to Rs. 50,000.

3. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which, following a precedent set by the Gujarat High Court, set aside the redemption fine and penalty, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. This decision was challenged by the Department through the present appeal.

4. The counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Department's appeal. It was argued that the appeal was not maintainable as per the Board Circular, which specified a monetary limit of Rs. 2 lakhs for filing an appeal. Since the total amount involved in the present case was below the monetary limit, the appeal by the Department was deemed not maintainable.

5. After hearing arguments from both parties, the Court considered the monetary limit specified in the Board Circular and the amount involved in the case. Despite the appeal being admitted based on a legal question, the Court decided not to entertain the appeal due to the monetary limit issue raised by the counsel for the respondent.

6. Given that the redemption fine and penalty amounts were below the monetary limit set by the Board Circular, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The decision was made without delving into the merits of the legal question raised, in accordance with the Board's circular. No costs were awarded in this judgment.