9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b), (d), (f) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to Shri B.K. Goyal and Shri Subhash Bansal under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to redeem the confiscated goods depositing Rs. 2 crores (Rs. Two crores only) as redemption fine. (2) Duty at appropriate rate was required to be paid on the goods under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the time of redemption and total duty of Rs. 11,47,31,273/- Rupees eleven crores forty-seven lakhs thirty-one thousand two hundred and seventy-three only) was confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (3) Penalty equivalent to the amount of duty was imposed and with liability for interest and Shri B.K. Goyal and Shri Subhash Bansal were made jointly and severally liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). Relying on Para 11 of the said judgment, his submission is that penalty cannot be imposed under Section 114A if Section 28 is not invocable. His last argument is that there shall be proper determination of penal liability by a speaking and reasoned order to impose penalty considering the law applicable. But a vague decision cannot give rise to penal consequences of law. 4. Shri Atul Gupta, ld. Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Shri Subhash Bansal submits that adjudication order suffers from legal infirmity. He brings out contents of pages 22 and 23 of order-in-Original demonstrating that the appellant was not heard at all when there was change of successor Authority deali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has granted fair opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Law is well settled that Authority passing an order must be same Authority who has heard the mater. Any deviation thereto renders the order to suffer from legal infirmity. From page 36 of Order-in-Original it appears that the Appellant, Shri B.K. Goyal was granted opportunity of hearing. But not this appellant. 9. Noticing that there is violation of natural justice in the cases, it would not be proper to deal with the matter on merits simply disposing stay applications. 10. In view of our observation aforesaid, we dispose off stay applications waiving requirement of pre-deposit of penalty and also dispose off the appeals without expressing any opinion remanding the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
