9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercised the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 112 of the Act. First question that may come out for consideration before the Tribunal is not whether the penalty imposed on a particular individual is justified etc., but, the question is whether the non-imposition of penalty on respondent is tenable and in accordance with law. In the particular circumstances of the case, the question for decision before the Tribunal is: Whether refraining from imposition of penalty is valid and legal? The question is de hors fiscal limits and pure question of law. The order under appeal is set aside. Matter remitted to CESTAT for consideration and disposal in accordance with law, along with the appeal pending in the matter of Anil Kumar - answered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce is dismissed. Cross-objections also disposed of. (emphasis supplied) 3. A few background facts to appreciate the substantial questions of law formulated by the appellant need to be stated. The Commissioner of Customs, through Annexure-A dated 13.03.2014 read with Corrigendum dated 22.04.2014, issued show-cause notice to as many as 15 individuals in respect of the search, seizure or recovery undertaken from Emirates flight EKCustoms 532 from Dubai to Cochin on 19.09.2013. The respondent is arrayed as Sl. No.14. At that point of time, respondent was working as Deputy Commissioner of Customs. One Anil Kumar, was working as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and shown at Sl. No.15 in the show-cause notice. The Commissioner of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Customs Act 1962 (vi) I impose a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only), on Shri. T.K.Faizal under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act 1962. (vii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), on Shri P.P. Sunil Kumar, Preventive Officer under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 (viii) I refrain from imposing penalty on Shri. C. Madhavan, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Retired) and Shri.Anil Kumar, Asst. Commissioner of Customs. (emphasis supplied) The Department, after examining the extent to which the exercise of discretion in respect of the Officials of Customs Department is concerned, decided to file appeal before the CESTAT against the order dated 13.04.2015. The CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainable both in law and fact. The primary question before the Tribunal is not the duty, penalty or fine, but the question is one touching upon the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs under Section 112 of the Act, and the fiscal value has no role to play at this juncture of the adjudication. 5. Learned Counsel Mr Gopalakrishnan Nair opposes the appeal in all fours. The first objection is that the Commissioner sitting in his armchair, appreciated the role played by each one of the conspirators and including the two Officers, upon being satisfied with the role of other two Officers, refrained from imposing any penalty. According to him, the discretion resulted in imposition of zero penalty. Therefore, it is well within fiscal limit imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs ninety three thousand five hundred and seventeen Only). (3) Whether, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the amount involved in the case is less than ₹ 10 Lakhs by ignoring the fact that as no penalty was imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority, the amount involved in the case cannot be quantified. 6.1 The circumstances preceding the decision in Annexure-B dated 13.04.2015 are stated to the extent required for disposing of the appeal. We are neither examining the merits nor involvement of any individual in the episode preceding the order in Annexure-B dated 13.04.2015. Substantial question no.3, as noted above, particularly refers to 'as no penalty was imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
