9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 130A of the Act. - 4371-4383/2004,840,841,842,843,844,845/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2011 - JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. Delay in SLP (C) No. 11177 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11180 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11181 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11182 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 12641 of 2006 and SLP (C) No. 14991 of 2006 is condoned and Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this batch of appeals is to the orders passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 3rd July, 2003 in Customs Application Nos. 27-29, 31, 34, 36 of 2002 and 2-10 of 2003; 24 th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.17-18 of 2003; 30th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.26 and 29 of 2003; 16th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 11-14 of 2003; 6 th April, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 31-33 and 35 of 2003 and 23rd March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 15-16 of 2003. By the impugned orders, the High Court has rejected the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") on the ground that no question of law arose from the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 3. As common questions of law and facts are involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Marble Industries. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in intervening with the redemption fines of Rs. 1.01 crores and Rs. 42,84,000/- imposed under Section 125 by the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva and reducing it to Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- and with penalties of Rs. 29,40,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed under Section 112[a] by the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva reducing them to Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively without examining the facts of the case?" 7. As afore-mentioned, the High Court has, vide the impugned orders, rejected the applications filed by the Revenue on the ground that no question of law arose from the orders of the Tribunal. It has held as follows: "Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are of the opinion that there are no questions of law which can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the facts in the case of the Respondents i.e. Marmo Classic and the facts in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries and Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. are similar. On perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is settled that if the Tribunal in its discretion reduces redemption fine, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the same. 11. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to make a reference to the provisions of Section 130A of the Act, which read as follows: "130A. Application to High Court. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under section 129B passed [before the 1st day of July, 2003] (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal. (2)The Commissioner of Customs or the other party applying to the High Court under sub-section (1) shall clearly state the question of law which he seeks to be referred to the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question before the High Court. Unless and until a finding of fact reached by the Tribunal is canvassed before the High Court in the manner set out above, the High Court is obliged to proceed upon the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal and to give an answer in law to the question of law that is before it. 8. The only jurisdiction of the High Court in a reference application is to answer the questions of law that are placed before it. It is only when a finding of the Tribunal on fact is challenged as being perverse, in the sense set out above, that a question of law can be said to arise." 14. In Sudarshan Silks Sarees Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka [(2008) 12 SCC 458], this Court had observed that: "Question as to perversity of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts was neither raised nor referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the facts is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable person could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
