2015 (10) TMI 2090 - HC - Customs

Challenge to chargeabiity of duty and reduction in redemption fine and penalty - It was observed that chargeability of duty was neither raised nor argued and only plea raised during arguments in the appeal was one for reduction of redemption fine and penalty - Held That - Appellant cannot be allowed to retract from their admitted statements - Orders passed by Tribunal dismissing the appeal and rectification application do not suffer any error of jurisdiction or of law - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to jurisdiction of orders imposing duty, redemption fine, and penalty by Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to Customs Appeal Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 of 2014, challenging orders dated 25.06.2012 and 31.01.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal. The counsel for the appellants argued that the duty imposed was without jurisdiction as the bills of lading were prior to the amendment. The Tribunal's order dated 25.06.2012 revealed that the appellants gave up the challenge to duty chargeability and only sought a reduction in redemption fine and penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of the imported goods' value based on the arguments presented by the appellants' counsel.

Moving forward, the appellants filed appeals before the High Court, seeking rectification as the Tribunal's order did not specifically mention the abandonment of the challenge to duty chargeability. However, the rectification application was dismissed by the High Court, emphasizing that the plea regarding the import of photocopiers not being restricted items during the relevant period was neither raised nor argued during the appeal. The High Court noted that the only plea made during the appeal was for the reduction of redemption fine and penalty, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The High Court highlighted that the appellants cannot retract from their admitted statements, especially after conceding that the plea challenging duty chargeability was not raised or argued before the Tribunal.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the orders passed by the Tribunal did not contain any jurisdictional errors or legal flaws. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining consistency in arguments presented before the Tribunal and the consequences of conceding certain points during legal proceedings.