2014 (4) TMI 1267 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty on appellant-CHA on account that he helped exporter to avail excess drawback claim u/s 114 of CA - learned Commissioner (Appeals) without appreciating the facts and without commenting as to why pre-deposit is required in such a situation, directed the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty imposed on them - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Relying, on the case law in the case of VAMAN KUNDER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI 2008 (9) TMI 324 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , it is held that the appeal against the impugned order is maintainable before this Tribunal. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned AR is turned down. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) s order directing the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty, has not been passed on merits therefore, the order is not correct. Consequently, the final order dismissing the appeal is also not correct, hence set aside - the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an appropriate order on merits, first on their stay application, thereafter on appeal. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalty for aiding exporter in availing excess drawback claim under Customs Act, 1962; Maintainability of appeal under Section 129A(1) challenged; Correctness of order directing pre-deposit of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. Maintainability of Appeal: The issue in question was whether the penalty imposed on the appellant for aiding and abetting the exporter to avail excess drawback claim falls under the purview of Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the appeal is maintainable, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal held that the appeal against the impugned order is indeed maintainable, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue's representative.

2. Imposition of Penalty and Appeal Process: The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was penalized for aiding the exporter in availing excess drawback claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty without providing a detailed reasoning. The Tribunal observed that this order lacked merit and correctness. Consequently, the final order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an appropriate order on merits and the stay application before addressing the appeal.

3. Decision and Disposal: After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order regarding pre-deposit of penalty to be incorrect. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal and stay application by setting aside the final order and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper decision on merits before addressing the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the imposition of penalty, the maintainability of the appeal, and the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, providing a detailed insight into the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.