9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of different Bills of Entry in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, he imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lakh, ₹ 30000/- and ₹ 80000/- in respect of different Bills of Entry under Sectgion 112(a)(ii) of the Act. Thereafter on 28/03/2008, he has passed a corrigendum changing the amount of redemption fine and penalty without giving any notice to the parties. The original order passed by the Jt. Commissioner and the corrigendum passed on 28/03/2008 are not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside the same and remand the case back to the original authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. and after following the principles of natural justice - Appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods can be fairly valued at ₹ 1,76,000/- and ₹ 4,38,600/- respectively for the two bills. The goods were released provisionally on execution of a bond and bank guarantee. After issue of a proper show-cause notice and giving the appellants opportunity to present their view points, the lower authority had vide OIO No.148/2006 JC dt. 19/09/2006 ordered finalization of the provisional assessment at the appraised value and imposed fine and penalty on the appellants and ordered appropriation of the said amount from the bank guarantee executed by them. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants had filed appeals. The said appeals were remanded back to the lower authority for denovo adjudication vide Order-in-Appeal No.05/2007 dt. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the original order was passed by the Jt. Commissioner of Customs on 07/03/2008 whereby he has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 10,000/- in respect of Bill of Entry No.3485, ₹ 8000/- in respect of bill of Entry No.3387 and ₹ 3000/- in respect of Bill of Entry No.3385 in terms of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The Jt. Commissioner has also imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lakh in respect of bill of Entry No.3485, ₹ 30,000/- in respect of Bill of Entry No.3385 and ₹ 80,000/- in respect of Bill of Entry No.3387 under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned counsel further submitted that the Jt. Commissioner on its ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a very good case on merits and has raised number of grounds in the grounds of appeal but this case will go only on account of the fact that the corrigendum was issued after about 20 days without notice to the other party hence unsustainable under law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant did not raise the ground of corrigendum before the Commissioner(Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal. Therefore the Tribunal should not look into corrigendum at all and decide the case on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, we find that the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... htly basis should be forfeited only after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Moreover, the Original Authority has issued a corrigendum enhancing the penalty without giving any reasoning. A corrigendum cannot substantially alter the original order. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) had not noticed the corrigendum. It is also seen that the appellant had discharged the duty liability by debiting in the Cenvat account. In any case, in view of the violations of principles of natural justice and also issue of corrigendum without giving any reasoning, the Order-in-Original cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order upholding the original order is also liable to be set aside. In any case payment by Cenvat credit is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
