2016 (6) TMI 65 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty of Rs. One Crore - Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the same was higher than the penalty under Section 114A - Held that - the duty liability for the entire quantity of goods totalling 606MT amounted to ₹ 94,50,292/- only. Therefore, the equivalent penalty under Section 114A, even if imposed, would have been lower than the penalty of one Crore imposed under Section 112. Hence, no reason found for the Revenue being aggrieved by the decision of the adjudicating authority. Moreover, it is also not open to Revenue to agitate at the present juncture that the penalty should be imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, when Para 17(d) of the show cause notice itself proposed imposition of penalty under the provisions of 112/114A of the Customs Act, 1962. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Non-appearance of Respondents in Revenue appeal
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 instead of Section 114A

Analysis:
1. Non-appearance of Respondents in Revenue appeal:
The judgment addresses the issue of non-appearance of the Respondents in a Revenue appeal pertaining to the year 2007. The Authorized Representative for Revenue highlighted the repeated non-appearance of the Respondents in previous hearings as well. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple notices, the Respondents did not appear, with postal authorities marking the notices as "Left." Considering the age of the appeal and the lack of response from the Respondents, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the matter.

2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 instead of Section 114A:
The main contention raised by the Revenue in the appeal was the failure of the adjudicating authority to impose a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal observed that the show cause notice proposed a penalty under Section 112, which was higher than the penalty under Section 114A. The adjudicating authority had already imposed a penalty of Rs. One Crore under Section 112, which exceeded the duty liability. The Tribunal emphasized that since the penalty under Section 112 was higher than what would have been imposed under Section 114A, there was no valid reason for the Revenue to contest the decision. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice itself mentioned the possibility of imposing a penalty under either Section 112 or 114A, making it inappropriate for the Revenue to raise this issue at a later stage.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and upheld the decision. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing.