9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is that no penalty was imposed on the respondents under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. In the remaining appeals, the prayer of the Revenue is to enhance the quantum of penalties imposed on the respondents. The appellant is represented by the learned JCDR. A few of the respondents are represented by counsel. The respondent in one appeal (E/188/03) is represented by the party in person. There is no representation for the remaining respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We take up all the appeals for final disposal. 2. At the outset, one of the learned advocates submits that 16 appeals filed by the Revenue against the order-in-original No. 206 to 219/2002 ibid have already been dismissed by this Bench and, therefore, the present appeals against the same order are only liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In this connection, the learned advocate has produced a copy of order No. A-16-37/2007/WZB/CII/CSTB dated 12.1.2007. He has also submitted the following statement showing the particulars of the pending appeals and the appeals disposed of on 12.1.2007: 3. Sr.No. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Custom House, Mumbai and hence no remedial action by way of filing ROM application or statutory appeal against the said order could be taken. It is submitted that the Registry of this Bench did not supply a certified copy of the Tribunal's order to the Commissioner of Customs (Export), NCH, Mumbai, who filed the appeals. The JCDR has also filed a copy of letter dated 24.11.2010 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs (EP), NCH, Mumbai addressed to Shri P.K. Aggrawal, JCDR. This letter states that the Commissioner (Export) did not receive the Tribunal's order dated 12.1.2007, that they applied for a certified copy of the order on 1.10.2010 to the Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, Mumbai but no such copy has been received till date, that the CESTAT had sent a certified copy to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who forwarded the said copy of the order to the Commissioner (Import), JNCH for further necessary action, that the Commissionerate (Export), NCH, Mumbai, on 24.9.2010 wrote to the Commissioner (Import), JNCH, to ascertain whether the Tribunal's order had been accepted or appealed against and that the Commissionerate (Import), JNCH, replied to the effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals of the Revenue are only to be dismissed. 7. The learned JCDR has made an endeavour to show that the present batch of appeals is distinct and different from those disposed of by the Tribunal on 12.1.07. It has been submitted that the Revenue's appeals which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 12.1.07 pertained to 8 out of 14 show-cause notices which were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner by a common order. According to the learned J.C.D.R., the present appeals of the revenue pertain to the remaining six show-cause notices and, therefore, these appeals merit independent consideration without regard to anything contained in the final order dated 12.1..07. It appears from the records that the 14 show-cause notices were issued to different parties including the present respondents on the basis of the results of common investigations. The Commissioner passed a common order in adjudication of these 14 show-cause notices. The Reviewing authority issued a common order reviewing the Commissioner's order as against the present respondents. In this scenario, the learned Jt CDR has attempted to show that it was open to the department to frame identical statement of facts, raise ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 114A of the Act was accepted by the Board and hence there is no reason why the present appeal of the department for enhancement of penalty should be entertained. Mr. Ashok Rajani, authorized representative of M/s Blend Syntex, appears and makes similar submissions. Both of them have also referred to the earlier order dated 14.12.2010 passed by this Bench dismissing the other batch of appeals of the Revenue. It is submitted that the grounds of dismissal of those appeals are valid for dismissal of the present appeals also. 5. After considering the submissions, we have to accept the last submission of the two respondents. As clearly stated in the earlier final order (para 6), the department should have raised specific grounds against the Commissioner's order in relation to each of the respondents. The reason why the 16 appeals of the Revenue were dismissed on 14.12.2010 is equally valid for the present purpose inasmuch as the ground of these appeals are in no way different from that of the said 16 appeals of the Revenue which were directed against the common order of the Commissioner. 6. As rightly pointed by the respondents, who are present today, the reviewing authority expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
