9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SCN issued by the DRI is without jurisdiction because DRI Officers are not proper officers during the period of dispute and therefore, the SCN itself is bad in law. Further, the imposition of penalty for abetment is also hit by principles res judicata as the appellant has been issued with SCN dated 13.01.2011 for the same offence by Mysore Customs Commissionerate and the same was finally decided by this Tribunal in N.A. JAYARAM, MEHBOOB KHAN, N.J. SHYLA AND RAJESH BALAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, MYSORE [ 2018 (2) TMI 948 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] by reducing penalty to ₹ 2,50,000/- each under Section 114(i) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Since on these two legal grounds, the SCN i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the OIO, the appellant had filed an appeal along with an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay on the recovery proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide Order No.25/2011 dated 08/09.11.2011 had found that there is a prima facie case against the appellant and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- within fifteen days of the receipt of the said order. The appellant further sought for modification of the stay order. However, the Commissioner, Customs (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.232/2011 dated 21.12.2011 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal could not be heard in the abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued with SCN dated 13.01.2011 for the same offence by Mysore Customs Commissionerate and the same has been decided finally by this Tribunal vide Final Order No.22738-22741/2017 dated 24.10.2017 by reducing penalty to ₹ 2,50,000/- each under Section 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the proceedings on the same offence is hit by the principles of res judicata and barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (conware) Vs CCE, Chandigarh-I, 2019 (26) GSTL 234 (Tri. Chan.) CCE, Customs ST, Raipur Vs Shivalaya Ispat Power Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (360) ELT 914 (Chattisgarh) 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e guise of Bentonite powder and hence, the appellant cannot be held to be involved in abetting of the alleged export of prohibited item namely MPO. The appellant has not personally involved in export of prohibited goods by mis-declaration and hence, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. He further submitted that the statements recorded by the DRI Officers do not have any evidentiary value and the said statements were obtained under threat and coersion which is clear from the statement of Shri Rajesh Balar though he was not involved in the alleged illegal export. 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
