2009 (1) TMI 101 - HC - Customs

Tribunal relying on its own order in assessee s own case set aside the penalty imposed u/s 114A - Whether Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty despite the duty amount being confirmed as not contested revenue contending that said order is not applicable o present case & said order is itself bad in law submission of revenue not acceptable - without entering into merits of the controversy, the Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal setting aside penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
2. Justification of setting aside penalty despite confirmed duty amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Tribunal setting aside penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act
The Appellant-Revenue questioned the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the unit under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal based its decision on a previous order in the assessee's case. The Appellant was directed to provide information on the status of the earlier proceedings and whether the previous Tribunal order had been challenged. The Appellant's Counsel argued that the previous Tribunal order was not applicable to the current case and was legally flawed. However, the High Court noted that these arguments were not raised before the Tribunal, and thus, there was no finding on these aspects. The Court emphasized that if these aspects were not raised before the Tribunal, the Appellant could not seek findings on them at the High Court level. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits of the controversy.

Issue 2: Justification of setting aside penalty despite confirmed duty amount
The second question raised by the Appellant concerned the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty on the respondent under Section 114A of the Customs Act, even though the duty amount was confirmed and not contested. The Appellant argued that substantial legal questions arose due to the Tribunal's decision. However, the High Court reiterated that since these arguments were not presented before the Tribunal, there were no findings on these issues. The Court emphasized the importance of raising all relevant aspects before the Tribunal for proper consideration. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal based on the lack of findings on the raised issues, without delving into the substantive merits of the case.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the significance of raising all pertinent arguments and issues before the Tribunal for proper consideration. The Court dismissed the appeal as the arguments presented before it were not raised at the Tribunal level, highlighting the importance of procedural adherence in legal proceedings.