9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 13-2-2006 [2006 (205) E.L.T. 738 (Tri. - Bang.)] set aside the Order-in-Original with consequential relief to the appellant. Against the Tribunal's order, the Department filed an appeal (CSTA No. 35/2006) in the High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 19-3-2010 [2010 (255) E.L.T. 39 (Kar.)] remanded the matter to the Tribunal without answering the question of law raised by the Department. Para-4 of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment is reproduced below : "4. After hearing, we are of the view that even if a wrong provision of law has been quoted by the Revenue in the show-cause notice, if the pith and substance of the show-cause notice fulfill the provisions of S.114 of the Customs Act, it was for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh Section 114 of the Act was also cited in para 30 of the show-cause notice, no grounds whatsoever was alleged therein for invoking the said Section of the Act against the appellant. It was further submitted that, for a penalty to be imposed on a person under Section 114 of the Act, he should be found to have, by some commission or omission, rendered any export goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. In the present case, there was not even an allegation in the show-cause notice that any export goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant rendered it so liable. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Act was only liable to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Vikram Jain (appellant) and the very same goods were brought back into India by them in the pretext of importing 'Mulberry raw silk yarn' under Advance Licence and duty-free clearance claimed under the said scheme, and this process was 'recycled'. The show-cause notice alleged against M/s. Texworth International, inter alia, thus : "They appear to have render themselves liable to pay interest at 20% on the said duty under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and liable to penalty under Section 112 & 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Vikram Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Texworth International appears to have rendered himself liable for penalty under Sections 112 & 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as he misused the DEEC concession gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner imposed the penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Act "for fraudulently exporting the goods". We have not found in the show-cause notice any allegation of "fraudulent" export. Moreover, any goods was not alleged to be liable to confiscation in terms of Section 113 of the Act, nor was the appellant alleged to have rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Obviously, in these circumstances, the learned Commissioner was not in a position to hold the goods liable to confiscation. The non-availability of the goods on account of "complete exportation" did not stand in the way of the Department alleging its confiscability for valid reasons or in the way of the adjudicating authority holding it to be liable to confiscation on val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
