9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1965, when the proceedings initiated under Rule 16 were still pending. 3. It is not in dispute that pertaining to certain counter signatures of the petitioner herein in bills of entries while discharging his functions as Assistant Commissioner of Customs holding charge of Air Cargo complex, Karipur from November, 2005 to 2006, memorandum of charges came to be issued on 31-8-2010 under the above said rules. This charge admittedly pertains to three bills of entries dated 8-12-2005, 12-12-2005 and 30-1-2006. It is also not in dispute that he gave a reply to the memorandum of charges as per letter dated 17-9-2010. The petitioner superannuated on 30-4-2011. 3. What is relevant is what happened prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for minor penalty was closed and only proceedings for major penalty under Rule 14 were pending. In that context CAT went to the extent of addressing the controversy saying whether at the stage of issuance of the second charge, the petitioner could have challenged the proceedings as there was only three bills of entries in the first memo in which minor penalty proceedings were initiated. By virtue of second memo dated 8-3-2011 apart from including the three earlier bills of entries, there were others one relating to 63 bills of entries and another relating to 17 bills of entries. However, the learned Senior Counsel contends 17 bills of entries are part of 63 bills of entries. The fact remains 63 bills of entries were not the subject matter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, there was no justification for initiation of the second proceedings. We are not faced with a situation where simultaneous proceedings of major penalty and minor penalty are pending. 8. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the respondent department brings to our notice that minor penalty proceedings could not have been completed on account of superannuation of the petitioner on 30-4-2011 and further details of unauthorised counter-signatures in the bills of entries came to light, therefore, proceedings for major penalty came to be initiated. 9. Having regard to the above situation, we are of the opinion the law laid down in Kanailal Bera v. Union of India [(2007) 11 SCC 517] relied on by the learned Senior counsel is not applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
