9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Respondent No. 2 did not have the opportunity of meeting the plea. The order of the Tribunal is rendered defective and hence not sustainable in law inasmuch as it does not show application of mind on the part of the Tribunal to all the material available on record as also to the legal consequences flowing from the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. Thus the ends of justice demand the matter being remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the question of liability between the appellant and the Respondent No. 2 : Whether both or only one of them, and if so, which of the two, would be liable to pay the duty and penalty as quantified. Appeal allowed. - 5427-5428 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 18-8-1999 - R.C. Lahoti and N. Santosh Hegde, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to have acted or omitted to act in such a manner making these goods otherwise liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Further, as the evidence on record has brought out a case of wilful delaying of payment of Customs Duty I find that M/s. Ranadip Shipping Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., as well as their principals M/s. Sea Land Service Inc. have rendered themselves for penal action also. I therefore impose a personal penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs (Rs. Six Lakhs only) on M/s. Ranadip Shipping Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 6 lakhs (Rs. Six Lakhs only) on M/s. Sea Land Services Inc. The demand Notice for recovery issued on 15-5-1988 is also confirmed." 2.The appellant and the Respondent No. 2 preferred separate appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant and the Respondent No. 2 then that was not a matter to be adjudicated upon in these proceedings and it was still open to the appellant to seek enforcement of private rights and obligations, contractual in nature, by initiating appropriate proceedings before a competent forum, i.e., the Civil Court. 4.The learned Counsel for the appellant has carried us through the impugned order of the Tribunal, "a perusal whereof clearly shows the appellant having raised a plea before the Tribunal to the effect that the Collector of Customs was not justified in exonerating the Respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to a number of documents available on record wherein the Respondent No. 2 through its a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. In our opinion, the ends of justice demand the matter being remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the question of liability between the appellant and the Respondent No. 2 : Whether both or only one of them, and if so, which of the two, would be liable to pay the duty and penalty as quantified. The technicality of Respondent No. 2 having not been joined as party respondent in the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal should not come in the way of the plea being heard and adjudicated upon on merits by the Tribunal. 6.The appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 14-3-1997 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal which shall hear all the parties and decide by taking into consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
