9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file an application before the Settlement Commission and therefore penalty imposed upon the appellants cannot be sustained and is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/195-197/2012 - Misc. Order No. 41283/2013 - Dated:- 26-3-2013 - Shri P.K. Das, J. Shri Niranjan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore all are taken up together for disposal. Appellant filed these appeals against imposition of penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs each under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. As the facts of the case are common in all these appeals, Appeal No. C/195/12 filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 13/2012 dated 29-5-2012 is taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises and the other broker Shri T. Rajasekaran settled the matter upon payment of duty liability before the Settlement Commission. By Final Order No. 22/2005, dated 4-4-2005, Settlement Commission ordered that duty liability is settled at Rs. 45,12,296/- as the main applicant, M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises reported payment of the same and no further amount is required to be paid. M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises has granted immunity from confiscation, penalty and prosecution as well as interest under the provisions of the Customs Act. Shri T.S. Rajesekaran broker and co-noticee was also granted immunity from penalty, interest and the prosecution under the Customs Act from the Settlement Commission. 2.2 The present appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wala v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. On the other hand, ld. authorized representative for Revenue submits that imposition of penalty is justified on merits. He further submits that the preliminary issue raised by the learned advocate is not sustainable for the reason that Division Bench of Tribunal at Chennai in the case of K.I. International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.-Chennai) after considering the decision of S.K. Colombowala (supra) held that orders by the Settlement Commission in the case of importers are not binding on the Tribunal to grant relief to the parties who were not before the Settlement Commission. 5. After hearing both the sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5.2 It is apparent that there is a conflict of views between the two Division Benches of the Tribunal on the same issue as mentioned above. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) has held that if a Bench of the Tribunal wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, propriety demands that matter be placed before President of the Tribunal so that case is referred to a Larger Bench, for which provisions exists in the Act itself. In the present case, apparently there is a conflicting decision of the two coordinate Division Benches on the issue as to whether the penalty on the co-noticee should be waived on the ground that main no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
