9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 449 - HC - CustomsMonetary amount involved in the appeal - Penalty u/s 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Invocation of second proviso to Section 129A - Held that - The CESTAT, which has been conferred jurisdiction under law to adjudicate and decide the issues, both on facts and law in all cases, is expected to do so after adverting to relevant facts. However, a small area of discretion is given to the CESTAT i.e. where the value of the subject matter of the appeal is lower than ₹ 2 lakhs. The parliamentary intent presumably was that in regard to such matters the CESTAT should not be compelled to decide the appeals before it in all cases on merits and rather should be permitted to exercise its jurisdiction in taking up matters having regard to the complexity of the facts or law involved. In the present case, the CESTAT appears to have considered the fact that the appeal value was low - appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962; Applicability of second proviso to Section 129A before CESTAT; Discretion of CESTAT in deciding appeals based on value of subject matter; Consideration of appeal value by CESTAT; Exceptional nature of CESTAT's power in dismissing appeal. Analysis: The judgment in question deals with the challenge raised against the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the penalty amounts, totaling &8377; 73,000/- and &8377; 50,000/-, were unjustified. The appellant further argued that the CESTAT erred in summarily rejecting the invocation of the second proviso to Section 129A, claiming that the provision did not apply to the circumstances of the case. The court delved into the jurisdiction and discretion of the CESTAT in adjudicating and deciding issues under the law. It was noted that the CESTAT has the authority to decide cases based on both facts and law, with a slight discretion when the value of the appeal is below &8377; 2 lakhs. The legislative intent behind this discretion was to allow the CESTAT to prioritize cases based on complexity. In this instance, the CESTAT took into account the low value of the appeal, which was a relevant factor in its decision-making process. Moreover, the court observed that the appellant had been unsuccessful in both the original order and the appeal. Considering these circumstances, the court found that the CESTAT's decision to dismiss the appeal was not unwarranted. The court acknowledged the exceptional nature of the power exercised by the CESTAT in this case, given the appellant's lack of success in previous proceedings. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the value of the subject matter, the discretion of the adjudicating body, and the overall circumstances of the case in determining the outcome of appeals in customs matters.
|
