9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst it. Hence, no order is being passed against an imaginary demand which is not there on paper, in respect of Appeal No. C/40145/2019. It is trite law that an abettor cannot be penalized more than the Principal offender. In the present case, admittedly, the first appellant is the Principal offender, neither is there any proposal in the SCN for imposition of penalty as against the said company nor did the Adjudicating Authority passing the Order-in-Original or the de novo Order, impose any penalty on the Principal. Therefore, the company not having been penalized would ipso facto mean that guilt in the first place is not proved beyond reasonable doubt even against the principal offender. In these circumstances, the co-noticees or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal No. 65651/2018 (DE NOVO), dated 15-10-2018 confirmed the penalty on all the above persons under 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, but without passing any order on the impugned goods, since the goods were permitted re-export to another buyer. However, reviewing the OIO and feeling aggrieved by the same the Revenue filed an appeal before CESTAT and the Tribunal, vide its Final Order No. 41230/2017, dated 7-6-2017, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of arriving at the quantum of redemption fine. In de novo adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs confiscated the seized goods and imposed a fine of ₹ 8,00,000/- as against ₹ 10,00,000/- originally imposed and reduced only the penalty on M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority passing the Order-in-Original or the de novo Order, impose any penalty on the Principal. Therefore, the company not having been penalized would ipso facto mean that guilt in the first place is not proved beyond reasonable doubt even against the principal offender. In these circumstances, the co-noticees or the co-offenders cannot be worse off than the principal offender and therefore, the penalties imposed against them is unsustainable. The case of the Revenue is a sheer aimless shot in the air. There is no order against the first appellant/alleged main culprit, even in the second chance/round, which only indicates that the allegation could not be taken beyond the very first step of establishing the guilt or motive, to attract pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
