9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2015 (9) TMI 975 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that There is no bar on the adjudicating authority, in a de-novo proceedings, to determine the quantum of fine or penalty. The fine and penalty imposed has been set aside and the matter is live for re- adjudication. Hence earlier order imposing fine or penalty does not have any relevance - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C.M.A.(MD).No.619 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - R. Subbiah And J. Nisha Banu, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.S.Renganathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Nandakumar JUDGMENT [ Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Subbiah, J. ] The present Appeal has been filed as against the Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, consequent upon new jurisdiction, passed an order in Original No.77/2004, dated 28.10.2004, imposing a penalty of ₹ 1,30,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai and the Tribunal dismissed the petition vide Final Order No.189/2012, dated 05.03.2012. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the appellate authority originally remitted the matter in Final Order No.592-597 of 2002, dated 17.05.2002 for de novo adjudication. The Commissioner of Customs, on completion of de novo enquiry, imposed a penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is that originally when the order was passed on 30.05.2000, the third respondent has not imposed any penalty. Subsequently, the appellate authority has remitted the matter by order dated 17.05.2002 for de novo adjudication. In the de novo proceedings, penalty was imposed by the second respondent. The matter was remitted only for the purpose of de novo adjudication. However, in the de novo proceedings, penalty was imposed on the appellant. To sum up, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order imposing penalty is not legally sustainable. However, we are not inclined to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact, in the unreported judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
