9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the appeal records. 4. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant had abetted/colluded with the exporter, M/s Preetam Marketing Ltd., by contravening the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and also failed to discharge duty properly as laid down under the Customs Act, 1962, for the purpose of scrutiny of Bills of Exports and examination of the goods, and the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. 5. Section 114 of the Act provides that :- " Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shabby be liable to penalty." The Ld. Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been correctly imposed upon the appellant under Sec 117 of the Customs Act 1962. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants argued that a notice is required to be given to the officers within time specified under Sec 155 (2) of the Customs Act 1962 and that no such notice was issued to the appellants. It is observed from Para-23 of the OIO dt 20/8/2007 passed by the Adjudicating authority that this point was specifically taken by the appellant before the adjudicating authority but Adjudicating authority has not given any findings on this issue. It is observed that CESTAT Bangalore in the case of CC & CE Hyderabad-II Vs Rajiv Kumar Agarwal (Supra) has taken following view on the applicability of Sec 155 (2) of the Customs Act 1962 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a months previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause. A reading of the said Act shows that the protection under the above section is applicable to all legal proceedings. Further, if protection to officers against proceedings in courts can be given, there is no reason why such a protection cannot be given to proceedings before quasi judicial authorities. Therefore, we do not find much sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
