9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered the goods liable to confiscation so as to attract a penalty under Section 114 of the Act in the present case - question whether Section 114 of the Act could be invoked against the appellant did not arise in that case - in favor of assessee. - C/9/2001 - 240/2012 - Dated:- 9-4-2012 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Kiran S. Jawali, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Haavanur, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal of Shri Vikram Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Texworth International, challenges the penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed on him under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . When the matter subsequently came up before this Bench, the counsel for the appellant submitted that they wanted to move the Hon ble High Court for clarification of its remand order, for which purpose hearing on the appeal stood adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, on 5-3-2012, the learned counsel for the appellant informed the Bench that they would not pursue the matter before the Hon ble High Court and both sides reached a consensus for agitating the penalty-related issue before us. Accordingly, final hearing was held on 9-4-2012. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Act was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice wherein the specific proposal was to impose a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty imposed on him is only liable to be sustained. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) also claimed that the relevant facts set out in the show-cause notice constituted an offence which invited penalty and therefore, notwithstanding the non-mention of Section 113 or Section 114 of the Customs Act in the operative part of the notice, it was open to the adjudicating authority to invoke these provisions against the appellant. In this connection, reliance was placed on Tribunal s decision in T.S. Narayana Rao v. CC [1990 (50) E.L.T. 328 (Tri.)]. 6. We have perused the records and considered the submissions. The gist of the Revenue s case as made out in the show-cause notice is that goods declared as Silk fabrics were exported under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It did not propose to hold the goods liable to confiscation either. On these facts, which are not in dispute, we are convinced that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act is unsustainable. 7. A penalty under Section 114 of the Act is attracted by a person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Commissioner (AR), the non-mention of Section 113 in the show-cause notice would not per se invalidate the penalty imposed under Section 114 if the penalty is otherwise supported by the essential facts alleged and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
