9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact as recorded in the impugned order that an application for rectification of the order dated 17th October, 2016 was pending for consideration. The Tribunal ought not to have disposed of the appeal finally for noncompliance with the earlier order dated 17th October, 2016 without first considering the Appellants' rectification application. This, the Tribunal is obliged to do even in the absence of the party. Therefore, the fair and just thing for the Tribunal to do was to list the Rectification Application on board and dispose of the same before taking up the appeal for final disposal. This the Tribunal did not do. In fact, this manner of dealing with an appeal by the Tribunal is deprecated. This only leads to injustice and multi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are that the penalty of ₹ 1.37 Crores was imposed upon the Appellant under Section 112(b) of the Act by the Commissioner of Customs i.e. the adjudicating authority. This was by a common order dated 7th May, 2014 of the adjudicating authority amongst others in respect of the Appellant. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 7th May, 2014 of the adjudicating authority, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Alongwith its appeal, the Appellant also filed an application for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty in terms of Section 129E of the Act for the purposes of its appeal being he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December, 2016. 8. It is the above impugned order dated 19th December, 2016 which is challenged in this appeal. It is the case of the Appellant before the Tribunal as well as before us that the duty escaped on account of the Appellant at the highest was ₹ 4.85 lakhs. However, the penalty imposed upon the Appellant was ₹ 1.37 Crore, thus, arbitrary and against the principle of proportionality. 9. We find that the Appellant did not appear before the Tribunal on 17th October, 2016 (when order of pre-deposit was made) nor on 19th December, 2016 (when appeal itself was dismissed). This inspite of notice. Nevertheless, we find that the Tribunal had on 19th December, 2016 itself noted the fact as recorded in the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
