9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have disturbed the order of Commissioner. Firstly, without any appeal being filed by the Department, it is questionable whether the Commissioner could have taken such a step. Secondly, in any case, without any notice, the other noticees had earned the verdict of dropping the proceedings. The appellate Commissioner could not have disturbed such order which would be plainly opposed to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, order against petitioners other than Krishna Clearing is quashed. Also, merely on the grounds of non-hearing of the concerned petitioners and on the appellate Commissioner having passed an order against the parties who were not respondents before him is not on merit of the issue involved. Decided in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative and detailed submissions were made. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, by the impugned order dated 12.10.2015, recorded his opinion and findings with respect to the culpability not only of Krishna Clearing but also all other noticees of such show cause notice. Having recorded his final findings on various relevant aspects of the matter, he remanded the proceedings to the Commissioner for fresh decision since, in his opinion, full facts were not available on the record. Relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under: 6.7 The allegations made in the Show Cause Notices are confirmed. (i) The goods i.e. 68630 kgs of Heavy Melting Scrap, contained in the Container Numbers (I) BAXU 2600877 (ii) BAXU 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.8 I would like to state that this is an exceptional case where the entire facts are not available on record and therefore, I find remitting of the case with suitable directions for de novo decision, becomes sine qua non to meet the ends of justice... . .. .. . .. .. ORDER 7. The Order No.KDL/JC/RMG/01/2015 dated 29.04.2015 of the lower authority is set aside with a direction that the adjudicating authority will impose penalties along with confiscation appropriate redemption fine (if any), keeping in view the above findings observations. While carrying out adjudication, the gravity of the offence modus operandi, may be taken into consideration. Appeal is disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to rest of the petitioners, facts are not serious in dispute. The Commissioner having dropped the show cause notice proceedings qua these petitioners, the Department had not appealed against such order in their cases. The Departmental appeal was confined only to Krishna Clearing. The Commissioner (Appeals) in absence of other noticees could not have disturbed the order of Commissioner. Firstly, without any appeal being filed by the Department, it is questionable whether the Commissioner could have taken such a step. Secondly, in any case, without any notice, the other noticees had earned the verdict of dropping the proceedings. The appellate Commissioner could not have disturbed such order which would be plainly opposed to the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
