9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme was to give benefit of settlement by the main parties to all other co-noticees - imposition of penalty set aside - appeal allowed. - W. P. (C) 4819/1999 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Deepa Sharma, JJ. For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing counsel ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. ( Oral ) 1. The three individuals in this writ petition seek direction for the quashing of an order dated 07.01.1999 which imposes penalty upon them. The impugned order was made pursuant to a show cause notice issued to the Company Lesag HBB (India) Limited and the other three petitioners before the court. The show cause notice, inter alia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 22,56,74,100 pcs. of Solder Preforms imported in excess vide BOE No. 211144 dated 8.2.95 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I also hold that the following notices are liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 and impose the following amounts of penalty on them:- (a) M/s Legal (HBB) India Ltd. Faidabad ₹ 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) (b) Shri E. George Commercial Manager ₹ 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) (c) Shri J.P.Gupta, Senior Manager Rs,1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) (d) Shri Jaspal Singh Rekhi, Import Manager ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) (iv) I do not impose any penalty on Shri Chattopadhyaya, the employee of M/s Lesag HBB (Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany i.e. first petitioner was satisfied, it would be highly inequitable if the respondent proceed against the present petitioners who were mere employees. 5. Mr. Rai appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged that unless an application is moved by all noticees, under the scheme, the settlement recorded in respect of one of them - may be even the principal person involved, would not inure any benefit to all others. To the extent of any tax liability, the revenue s rights to enforce it independently are preserved. Reliance is placed upon para 12 upon the judgment reported as Union of India v. Onkar S. Kanwar (2002) 145 ELT 266 (SC). 6. It is evident from the above facts that the principal noticee s liability i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Vellpally next submitted that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, if read as a whole, makes it clear that the benefit of the declaration made by the Company was to accrue even to the Officers of the Company so long as the adjudication proceedings were pending. He submitted that the interpretation sought to be given by the Department would render nugatory the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order. He submitted that such an interpretation would lead to uncertainty. He submitted that the applicability of the Order could not depend upon whether or not an Officer has been proceeded with adjudication expeditiously or not. He submitted that the object was to give benefit to all Directors/Officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings are still pending in Appeal. Even otherwise the order has to be read along with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. Under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme a party can file a declaration so long as the proceedings are pending. Thus, even thought the show cause notice may have been adjudicated upon and an Appeal is pending a party could still take the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and file a declaration. The object of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order is to give benefit to a settlement by the main party (i.e. the Company in this case) to all other co-notices. This being the object a classification, restricting the benefits only to cases where the show cause notice is pending adjudication, would be un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
