9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which they have already suffered by way of major penalty under disciplinary proceedings. In this view of the matter, I hold that no penalty is sustainable against the appellant Smt. Geeta V Patil and accordingly, I set aside the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act against her. I further hold that no penalty was imposable against other two respondent officers namely, Shri V.M. Joshi and Shri A.A. Salkar - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. C/86599/13, C/86634/13 & C/86635/13 & C/CO/91098/13 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Advocate Shri S.J. Shahu, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri S.D. Pradhan, Consultant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packages were HDPE bags/potlas and the rest 21 packages were wooden crates containing brand new high value branded furniture, glassware, chandelier parts and other household goods import from UK, and the value was ascertained to ₹ 71,48,975/- and accordingly the goods were put in store on 2.12.2009. The examination also revealed that the potlas were in fact courier parcels sent by different consignors from UK to different consignees in India by misusing the passport of an unrelated passenger arriving from Dubai, UAE. Similarly, in respect of BDF No. 1032, the DRI ascertained the value of the goods to ₹ 1.07 crore approximately. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 9.11.2010 was issued by Additional Director General, DRI, Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the consignment consists of wooden crates also. 2.3 Vide Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2012 (impugned order), penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant Geeta V Patil under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, whereas no penalty was imposed on the respondent officers - (i) Shri A.A. Salkar and (ii) Shri V.M. Joshi on the observation that it is a case of vigilance action. 2.4 Accordingly Geeta V Patil has preferred Appeal No. C/86599/13 and the Revenue has preferred appeal No. C/86634/13 against Mr. V.M. Joshi and appeal No. C/86635/13 against Mr. A.A. Salkar. Mr. A.A. Salkar has also filed Cross-objection No. C/CO/91098/13. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Bench by the learned Counsel and learned AR that S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further pointed out that vide Order-in-Original dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) with respect to Disciplinary Proceedings against Smt. Geeta V Patil under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, she has been held guilty of negligence in duty and accordingly, punished to the extent that her pay was reduced by two stages in the time scale of PB-2 - ₹ 9300-34,800/- + ₹ 4600 (GP), for a period of one year w.e.f 1.8.2012 with cumulative effect. It was further directed that she shall not continue to draw increment during the period of reduction and on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay. The Counsel further urges that the appellant has su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be considered to be identical to Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme justifying invocation of case laws under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme and the other question was referred that whether treating the appellants as mere co-notices, waiver of penalty should be granted on the ground that the main accused have obtained immunity from penalty by the order of the Settlement Commission, this Tribunal answered the question in favour of the assessee, held by majority, that the question as to who played the main role is irrelevant for the reason that once the case is settled by the Settlement Commission, it is settled in its entirety and such a case then cannot be adjudicated quo other co-notices. It was further held that the case against all co-notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e valuation is found to be incorrect. The Tribunal has also taken notice of the fact that Customs Superintendent has countersigned the examination report after being satisfied with the report and in such case, no penalty was found sustainable on the Preventive Officer. Accordingly, the Counsel for the appellant officer pray for allowing the appeal and setting aside the penalty imposed on her by the Commissioner. Similarly Counsel for respondent officers pray for dismissal of appeal. 4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order with respect to the appellant(Geeta V Patil). As regards the respondent officers in other two appeals by Revenue, prays for setting aside of the impugned order and/or imposition of penalty. 5. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
