9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: P.G. Chacko 1. All these appeals of the Revenue are directed against a common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs in adjudication of 14 show-cause notices. Another batch of 16 appeals of the Revenue filed against the same order of the Commissioner came to be dismissed by this Bench vide Order No. A/538-553/2010-CSTB/CI dated 14.12.2010. The full text of the said order is reproduced below: "These appeals were filed by the department against the Commissioner's order-in-original No. 206 to 219/2002/CAC/CC/MD dated 17.5.2002. In some of these appeals, the grievance of the 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 out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 Orient Exports C/287/03 Importer ___ 4. A perusal of the Tribunal's order dated 12.1.2007 indicates that the 16 appeals of the Revenue mentioned in the 5th column of the above statement were dismissed by majority decision. The learned advocate has further submitted that the final order dated 12.1.2007 dismissing the appeals of the Revenue attained finality inasmuch as it was not challenged by the department. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the pending 16 appeals of the department mentioned in the third column of the above statement, against serial nos 1 to 09, 12, 15 and 16, 20 to 22 and 24 are liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned JCDR has contested the above submission of the counsel, by pointing out that no copy of the Tribunal's final order dated 12.1.2007 was received by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The fact remains that the final order dated 12.1.07 of the Tribunal attained finality and the same is binding on the department. In some of the appeals of the Revenue disposed of on 12.1.07, the prayer was to enhance the quantum of penalty imposed on the respondents by the Commissioner and in other appeals of the Revenue, the prayer was to impose penalties on the respondents who had been exonerated by the Commissioner from penal liability. It appears from the records that the present appeals of the Revenue mentioned in the third column of the tabulated statement filed by the advocate are pari materia with the corresponding appeals mentioned in the 5th column of the said statement, in all respects including statement of facts, grounds of appeal, and the reliefs prayed for. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel, these appeals 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 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, now that these appeals of party-appellants stand allowed by way of remand, the present appeals of the Revenue may also be allowed by way of remand for the ends of justice. None of the respondents, barring M/s Santosh Textiles (C/189/02) and M/s Blend Syntex (C/195/03), is available to contest this submission of the learned JCDR. 4. Mr. Raj Kumar Hasija, proprietor of M/s Santosh Textiles raises a few objections against Revenue's appeal being allowed in the manner suggested by the learned JCDR. He submits that the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty on him under Section 114 of the Customs Act but the Board which reviewed the Commissioner's order wanted such penalty to be imposed on him regardless of the fact that he did not export any goods. It is further submitted that the penalty imposed on this party under Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
