9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 350 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Section 129A(3) of CA - validity of Compounding Order passed by the Compounding Authority - demand of redemption fine - compounding of offences under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 in view of his previous antecedents under the Act - HELD THAT - A common order was passed by the Tribunal in two appeals being the SHRI NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST MUMBAI, SHANTILAL JAVERCHAND JAIN VERSUS C.C., AHMEDABAD 2019 (6) TMI 1461 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and from which the present appeal arises before us. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in SHRI NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST MUMBAI, the Revenue had come before this Court by way of THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI 2020 (4) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020 dismissed the Tax Appeal No.106 of 2020. The order states that since there is no clear proposal in the SCN on imposition of redemption fine and also in the OIO, there is no crystallized demand of redemption fine against each noticee. It was held that the department could not recover fine from the noticee. In this position, there is no demand of redemption fine against the appellants. In this view, there is no case of demand of redemption fine,Therefore, the rejection of application for non-payment or redemption fine if not correct and legal. The present appeal arising from the self same order passed by the Tribunal should also fail - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging Compounding Order. 2. Interpretation of Order in Original regarding redemption fine demand. 3. Entitlement to compounding of offences under Section 137(3) based on previous antecedents. Issue 1: Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging Compounding Order: The tax appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant raised questions regarding the maintainability of an appeal challenging a Compounding Order passed by the Compounding Authority. The High Court declined to adjudicate on these questions as a common order was passed by the Tribunal in two appeals. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was cited, emphasizing that the order rejecting the application for compounding was not passed by the Commissioner as an adjudicating authority under the Act. The Court clarified that the principles of law applied in a related case under the Central Excise Act were applicable in the present case as well. Issue 2: Interpretation of Order in Original regarding redemption fine demand: The second issue revolved around the interpretation of the Order in Original dated 31.03.2005 concerning the demand for redemption fine. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the rejection of compounding applications was based on the non-deposit of the redemption fine. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that there was no clear proposal in the Show Cause Notice or the Order in Original regarding the imposition of redemption fine. Therefore, it was held that there was no crystallized demand of redemption fine against the appellants. The Tribunal directed the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the application for compounding within a specified timeframe. Issue 3: Entitlement to compounding of offences under Section 137(3) based on previous antecedents: The third issue dealt with the respondent's entitlement to compounding of offences under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, considering their previous antecedents under the Act. The Tribunal observed that there was no clear proposal in the show cause notice regarding the redemption fine demand. Consequently, the rejection of the application for non-payment of the redemption fine was deemed incorrect and illegal. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the application for compounding within a specified period. The Court held that none of the questions of law proposed by the Revenue could be considered substantial, leading to the dismissal of the tax appeal. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax appeal challenging the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the lack of substantial questions of law and the absence of a crystallized demand for redemption fine as key factors in the decision-making process.
|
